1960-07-19

[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Cathers.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, last evening the hon. member for Laurier suggested that the house might adjourn for an hour this afternoon, from two o'clock to three o'clock, in order to allow members of the house to attend the ceremony dedicating Laurier House as a national historic monument. If the house will accept the suggestion, so that no time will be lost in carrying on the business of the house, without making a formal motion I would suggest that the hours of sitting this afternoon and evening be from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. and from 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. That would enable hon. members of all parties to attend this ceremony.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say at once that we on this side of the house are grateful to the Prime Minister for the suggestion he has made and for the graceful gesture on his part in connection with the unveiling of the tablet. I take it that this will apply also to the two committees that are sitting during this time.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: We think this is an appropriate and business-like arrangement in the circumstances.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the house prepared to agree unanimously that the sitting hours today will be from 3 p.m. until 6 p.m. and from 7 p.m. until 11 p.m.?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



REQUEST FOR EARLY CONSIDERATION OF LABOUR DEPARTMENT ESTIMATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the publication today of the official figures on unemployment, which revealed that 4.6 per cent of
the labour force is out of work as compared with 3.7 per cent a year ago, or an increase of 66,000, will the Prime Minister make arrangements to have the Department of Labour estimates considered by this house immediately so that this serious situation can be discussed?


John George Diefenbaker: I think I gave a reply to that question the other day. I can understand the feeling of the hon. gentleman respecting the seriousness of unemployment, but I think it is well to point out that in the period 1936 to 1940 the percentage was higher.


Mr. Hellyer:: Are you trying to turn the clock back?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in view of the unsatisfactory reply given to the question put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson).


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope it is not necessary for me to repeat the rules to the hon. member for Essex East, but when he rises, according to the rules, he is rising to seek information about a factual matter of administrative responsibility and not to comment on something else which has been taking place in the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to accept that one may not put a question in that form. However, I am so co-operative that I will ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether, in view of the reply given to the Leader of the Opposition by the Prime Minister, he will now tell us if we can discuss the Department of Labour estimates at the earliest possible moment.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the house will move very rapidly on the estimates of the departments and that we will reach the Department of Labour at the earliest possible moment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the seriousness of this matter of unemployment I am asking the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether that means we will be given an opportunity to discuss these estimates, for instance, tomorrow?

Trade


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to determine that one department is more important than another. There may be problems which loom large in the minds of my hon. friends, but each department and the supply for each department is surely just as important as the supply for any other department. The whole business of the country depends on the voting of this money.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the house leader whether he will bring forward the Department of Labour estimates tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, quite a bit depends upon the progress made today with the Department of Finance and the Department of Public Works.



ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT-CANADIAN REPRESENTATION

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that Canada will be represented at the ministerial meeting in Paris, July 22 and 23, to consider the proposed organization for economic co-operation and development. The Canadian delegation will be led by the Minister of Finance and will also include Mr. S. S. Reisman of the Department of Finance, Mr. O. G. Stoner of the Department of External Affairs, Mr. R. Campbell Smith of the Department of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Jules Leger, Canadian ambassador to NATO and the O.E.E.C., and Mr. Peter Towe of the Canadian mission to NATO and the



O.E.E.C.

[Stage Direction]
It will be recalled that following the special meetings on economic co-operation in Paris in January, a group of four experts prepared a report and recommendations on the establishment of a new organization for economic co-operation and development to replace the organization for European economic co-operation. Canada and the United States would be full members of the new organization, which would be shaped to meet the problems of the 1960's.
This week in Paris ministers of the 18
O.E.E.C. member countries and Canada and the United States, together with representatives from the European communities, will be asked to approve provisionally a draft convention along the lines of the report and recommendations of the group of four, and to agree generally on the activities of the new organization. While all decisions that are made at this meeting will be provisional, they will be taken as an indication of willingness to sign a convention subsequently

subject, of course, to parliamentary ratification by the parliaments and legislative bodies of all participating governments.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the house will have heard with interest and approval the Prime Minister's announcement. The conference to which he referred is one that will be dealing with subjects of very far-reaching importance, as important to this country as to any of the countries that will be represented there. Therefore I think it is a matter for satisfaction that such a strong Canadian delegation is going to this conference in Paris headed by the Minister of Finance. I know that the minister is a very energetic and hard-working person, but how he is going to manage to be in Paris at that conference and in Ottawa at the conference with the provinces on fiscal relations is a little beyond our understanding, but no doubt he will be able to manage it somehow or other.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, we think that such a meeting and the formation of such an organization is long overdue. We think Canada has been tardy in taking action that was necessary as a result of the setting up of the common market and the outer seven. In this day and age, action by the Canadian government should be directed at all times toward removing barriers against international trade and toward a reduction of tariffs. We have said that Canada should associate herself initially with the outer seven and eventually with the whole north Atlantic trading area. Although this is something like locking the stable door after the horses are out, we hope this organization will get the horses back into the stable.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I say in response to the statement just made that apparently the hon. member does not realize that this is a meeting of 20 countries, and that it is not a case of locking the stable after the horses have escaped. This is a meeting in keeping with responsibilities that are generally being accepted, and only now have been accepted by these various countries.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Prime Minister is out of order and wrong again.



WHEAT, OATS AND BARLEY    ANNOUNCEMENT OF INITIAL PAYMENTS

Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to advise the house that initial payments for the basic grades of western wheat, oats and barley

have been approved by the government and established for the crop year 1960-61. These initial payments will continue at the same level as in effect for the present crop year.
The initial payment for wheat, effective August 1 next, is $1.40 per bushel basis No. 1 northern wheat in store Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver. The initial payment for barley is 96 cents per bushel, basis No. 3 Canada western six row barley in store Fort William-Port Arthur. The initial payment for oats is 60 cents per bushel basis No. 2 Canada western oats in store Fort William-Port Arthur.
The initial payments for all other grades of wheat, oats and barley effective for the crop year 1960-61 will be established at a later date on the recommendation of the Canadian wheat board.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, this kind of announcement is becoming rather routine, because there is no change in the initial price. I should like to ask the minister whether the elevator companies will be in a position to issue cash tickets on August 1, the beginning of the crop year. Sometimes there has been a rather long delay between the setting of the price and payments to the farmers at the beginning of the crop year. I express the hope that the elevator companies will be in a position to issue cash tickets on August 1.
In so far as the payments are concerned, they have become rather standard. They are merely initial payments and we hope the government will take action to increase these payments. In my opinion the famous nickel a bushel that was knocked off the price of oats a few years ago by the minister's predecessor could now be appropriately restored.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The announcement made by the minister will serve perhaps to remind the Minister of Agriculture in view of the fact that this is the 19th day of July, that the time has come for announcing something about Ontario grown wheat, and whether or not whatever is done is to be done under the Agricultural Stabilization Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Essex East took the floor to comment on a statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, not to deal with other matters.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I am about to deal with it, but I did not know that the subject of wheat was so divisible as the Minister of Agriculture seems to think.
Inquiries of the Minisry


Mr. Harkness:: The Minister of Agriculture has not said a word.


Murdo William Martin: This is the first time that the Minister of Agriculture-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member will not cause me to rise again.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I hope the large majority of tumultuous voices will not cause you to rise again.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Murdo William Martin: Hon. members are very touchy this morning, Mr. Speaker. As has been said, the announcement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce is routine, and it shows the lack of imagination in the policies of this government.
[Later: ]


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, following up the minister's announcement regarding wheat prices for the new crop year. Can the minister indicate whether the cash advance program will be in effect as soon as the new harvest starts, so that farmers will be able to get advances of up to $3,000 interest free as soon as they have wheat stored on their farms?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the cash advance program will continue in effect as it has for the three crop years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. Over those three crop years between 45,000 and 50,000 farmers have taken advantage of that useful legislation and have borrowed up to about $35 million. In the
1957-58 and 1958-59 crop years over 99 per cent of that money has been paid back.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the press release this morning on the unemployment situation, and the statement that there were 300,000 seeking work in June and that some 124,000 had been seeking work for over four months; in view of the serious situation outlined in the release, can the minister inform us whether there is any planning of a summer works program and, if not, whether there is going to be a move ahead with the start of the winter works program?

Inquiries of the Minisry


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: In
relation to the figures submitted by the hon. member with regard to those out of work for over four months, I should like to look into the situation in order to see whether or not this has been a normal thing. Summer work, of course, is picking up very rapidly now. There was a decrease of 99,000 people from the month of May to the middle of June, and more people are working. As a matter of fact, 162,000 more people were employed during June than in May. This definitely shows an increase in employment. Also there were 101,000 more people employed during the month of June this year than during the month of June last year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Unemployment is greater now than it has been at any time.


Michael Starr: Some months ago, speaking on the program "The Nation's Business" I stated that the government's policy would be directed to meeting the unemployment situation. Yesterday, as an example, the Minister of Public Works announced new housing arrangements.


Mr. Pickersgill:: After September.


Michael Starr: Probably the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate does not want anything done about this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said it was for after September; neither does the government.


Michael Starr: I say that this is one measure directed to stimulating activity in a field which materially assisted in beating the recession in 1958. The present Prime Minister has shown greater concern about unemployment in this country than any other prime minister in our history.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member has strayed from the question.


Michael Starr: May I just conclude my statement, Mr. Speaker? I want to assure the hon. member and the house that measures will be taken of a nature designed to deal with the situation, and that these measures will be announced when they have been formulated in the same way they were announced yesterday by my colleague the Minister of Public works.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The minister misrepresented completely what I said. What I was pointing out was that the announcement yesterday had no effect until September.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it unnecessary to comment on the question of privilege. The

hon. member was out of order when he made his comment in the first place.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In the light of the report which is in our hands today, and which indicates that the June estimate of persons without jobs and seeking work represent 4.6 per cent of the labour force as compared with 5.2 per cent in June of 1958; and in the light of what the minister has said concerning the announcement made yesterday by the Minister of Public Works, I think I am in order in asking the minister now what other plans his department has to meet this very serious unemployment situation, and whether he will announce them in the house?


Michael Starr: In replying to the hon. member for Vancouver East Mr. Speaker, I think I stated quite clearly that when these measures are formulated to meet the situation they will be announced in this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When will they be formulated?



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Laurier asked for information regarding the tenders received for the construction of what is known as the Icecan cable.
The contract is for the construction of the Newfoundland-Iceland telephone cable, known as the Icecan project, being a section connecting Newfoundland, Greenland and Iceland of a telephone cable system provided primarily for international civil aviation organization telecommunication facilities between Scotland and Newfoundland, as well as intermediate points in Iceland and Greenland, in accordance with the Canadian government's proposal to ICAO at the Paris meeting in January, 1959.
The cost of $8,296,445 is to be shared as follows:
(a)	The sum of $6,002,640 by Great Northern Telegraph Company of Denmark.
(b)	The sum of $2,293,805 by Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation as provided in the capital budget of the corporation for the year ending March 31, 1960, approved by order in council P.C. 1959-533 dated May 5, 1959.
The tenders received were:
1.	Felton & Guilleaume, Cologne, Germany, $8,296,445.

2.	Cables de Lyon, France, $8,428,061.
3.	Submarine Cables and Standard Telephones & Cables, London, England, $8,533,466.
The contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer, Felton & Guilleaume of Cologne, Germany.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold Hicks (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very urgent question I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture. Is he aware of complaints from the Fraser valley respecting the assessing of value for cattle found positive under the brucellosis test? Could I be informed of the basis on which the value is arrived at?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the department has not been aware up to this time of any complaints from the Fraser valley in connection with the valuation of cattle ordered destroyed as a result of the brucellosis eradication program. However, the valuation and slaughtering procedures will be examined in order to assure full application of the intent of the valuation authority under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
Under the provisions of this act the maximum valuation for grade cattle is $70, and $140 for purebred cattle. In addition to this valuation the owner receives the beef value of the animal. In valuing grade animals three factors are taken into consideration: (1) conformation; (2) age; (3) immediate or prospective usefulness. Each factor is considered separately and is considered to represent one third of the value.
In valuing purebred, registered cattle, four factors are considered:	(1) pedigree; (2)
conformation; (3) age; (4) immediate or prospective usefulness. In this case, each factor is considered to represent one quarter of the total value.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the great danger to world peace caused by U-2 flights over or near Soviet territory, will the minister tell the house whether U-2 flights are being conducted over Canadian territory?
Inquiries of the Minisry If so, what control is Canada exercising over these flights to make sure they do not stray toward the Soviet union?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the crisis some weeks ago I explained to the house that there were none of the U-2 spy flights taking place from Canadian bases or over Canadian territory. There has been no change in that situation since.
The house might be interested to know that Prime Minister Macmillan sent a letter to Premier Khrushchev yesterday dealing with the note which had been sent by the Soviet union to Great Britain concerning the United States B-47 aircraft. I think the statements made by Prime Minister Macmillan in that note might be of interest to the house in view of the discussion we had on this subject during the consideration of my estimates on Friday. I will not read the reply in full, but one paragraph reads as follows:
On the contrary the government of the U.S.S.R. bears a heavy responsibility for the action of the Soviet pilot who shot down the United States aircraft in international air space. Her Majesty's government view with the utmost seriousness this unprovoked attack which illustrates the danger implicit in the present instructions to the Soviet armed forces.
The following paragraph reads:
Her Majesty's government cannot agree that the use of United Kingdom territory by the United States air force for legitimate operations in international air space can in any way be regarded as aggressive action and accordingly cannot accept the allegations contained in the ministry's note.
In addition Prime Minister Macmillan sent a personal note to Premier Khrushchev which I believe has been published this morning. The personal note sets out very clearly the dangerous course being followed by the Soviet at the present time. This personal letter, I think, is another very statesmanlike move made by Prime Minister Macmillan. At no time has there been any question of U-2 flights taking place from Canadian bases or over Canadian territory, and that fact was admitted by Premier Khrushchev to our Canadian ambassador in Moscow just last week.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Canadian government received from the defence atomic research agency of the United States any report on the scientific data, if any, obtained by these planes flying over Canadian territory? I understand that such a report has been made by the United States government to the government of Argentine. Has a similar report been made to the Canadian government?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what kind of trouble the hon. member for Assiniboia is trying to stir up not only in
6486	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Minisry this house but also tor Canada. It seems to me that an imputation such as that contained in the hon. member's present question can only do harm, because it can only be misinterpreted in other parts of the world where they are only too anxious to make trouble for Canada. I have already told the house that flights of the U-2 spy type do not take place from Canadian bases or over Canadian territory.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not think it is in order for the minister to impute motives or to make that kind of insinuation when I have asked a very direct question.


Mr. Kucherepa:: The hon. member received a very direct reply, too.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think that is a valid question of privilege. I did not understand the minister's reply as imputing any motives. The hon. gentleman simply pointed out the dangers of the question which was asked.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the minister whether this United States agency has placed Canada in the some position as this report says it has placed the government of Argentina, and whether it has made a scientific report to the Canadian government. If so, I want to know what was in it.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, that is just another trouble-making question, and I do not propose to answer it.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is Canada giving any further consideration to membership in the organization of American states?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Welland had been here last Friday he would have heard me explain this matter in detail. Perhaps if he will look at Hansard he will find the answer.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and


Immigration, and ask the hon. lady in the light of the statement published today on the employment situation what steps her department is taking to place the tens of thousands of British immigrants who were invited to this country to seek jobs by the Prime Minister when he was in London?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, those persons who apply for entry to Canada are given permission to come forward on the basis of their adaptability and the particular trade or skill in which they are employed, as well as the availability of employment in that particular trade or skill. Our placement officers are always at the disposal of the immigrants who come in. I know of no large scale influx of unplaced persons.



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ellen Louks Fairclough: On July 7 the hon. member for Assiniboia asked me a question with reference to a statement that Germans who were brought to Canada to act as technical advisers to Associated Mining Construction Limited of Esterhazy, Saskatchewan, were being used by that company in a type of strike-breaking role. I inquired from my department and found that an investigation was already on the way at the request of the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Ormiston).
The situation at the potash mine in Ester-hazy, where a number of Canadian workers are on strike, has been investigated jointly by immigration and national employment service officials. To obtain experienced personnel to assist them in sinking a shaft through the Blairmore sands, the company had previously brought forward 12 employees of the parent company in Germany. Three of these are heads of the firm and nine are key personnel, such as civil engineers. They are legally in Canada.
When the strike began the company was obliged to use the services of nine German personnel for maintenance work. Their work pertains to hoists, freeze plant, electrical equipment and the maintenance of freeze holes at the bottom of the shaft. The company states that if these freeze holes are not maintained, the ice wall in the Blairmore formation could be permanently damaged.
The investigation carried out indicates the German personnel are being engaged only in essential maintenance work to protect the shaft, which it is understood represents an

investment of $5.6 million out of an investment which will total $24.5 million.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridgs (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the United Nations security council is now giving consideration to sending the Cuban government's complaint against the United States to the organization of American states for its consideration and disposal, does the minister not consider that the security council remains the proper forum for the settlement of any dispute in the hemisphere of more than local importance, and that this action on the part of the United Nations security council is a surrender of a portion of its authority under the United Nations charter?


Mr. Speaker:: I just raise this question for the consideration of the house. I am not sure whether the question asked does not go beyond the administrative responsibility of the government. It relates to foreign affairs and Canada is a member of the United Nations, but that seems to be the closest link. However, I do not wish to bar the minister from answering if he wishes to do so.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this issue is under consideration in the security council this week, and I think the hon. member is right in asking this question. Of course I have the answer ready; it may well be that I might look on it a little differently if I had not.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is not a trouble-making question.


Howard Charles Green: The answer to the question is no. Action by the security council to refer a dispute to a regional organization is, in fact, recommended by the charter. In article 33 of chapter 6, entitled "Pacific Settlement of Disputes", it is stated among other things that parties to any dispute shall, first of all, seek solution by resort to regional agencies or arrangements. Paragraph 2 of the same article specifically authorizes the security council to call upon the parties concerned to settle their disputes by such means.
It may be of interest to the house if I read the full text of article 33:
Paragraph 1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation,
79951-0-409
Inquiries of the Ministry inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements-
And that, of course, is the material provision in this particular case.
-or other peaceful means of their own choice.
Paragraph 2. The security council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their disputes by such means.



STATEMENT RESPECTING REQUEST FOR RECOGNITION OF KATANGA PROVINCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: I should like to make a confession with regard to a question asked me yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition He asked, as reported at page 6409 of Hansard:
Can the minister inform the house whether the government has received any request from Katanga for recognition as a separate state.
I replied:
Not directly, Mr. Speaker, although an effort is being made by the government of Katanga to get recognition from various countries.
I checked that point after the orders of the day yesterday, and actually we did get a commercial telegram last Friday which purported to come from Mr. Tshombe, who is the premier of Katanga province and who is reported to have established himself as head of state of an independent Katanga. The telegram requested Canada's recognition. No reply has been sent.
This problem is part of the complex and rapidly changing Congo situation, and it is being studied. The whole Congo situation is, of course, being studied in consultation with other interested authorities.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. F. Jones (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware of the report in last evening's Ottawa Journal to the effect that Hon. C. M. Fines, provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan, has publicly stated in Saskatoon his government's intention to request federal aid to help bail the C.C.F. out of their election promise to provide medical care in the province of Saskatchewan? If he has seen this report, can he state whether it is his intention to come to the rescue of the provincial government in this manner?
6488	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
Hen. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, I saw the report to which the hon. member has referred, not only in the Ottawa Journal but I think in another newspaper yesterday as well. It is an interesting report if the provincial treasurer, Mr. Fines, is accurately reported. I think when I saw it I smiled.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. Does the government intend to wait 10 years to act on this plan as the former government did in relation to the hospitalization plan?


Mr. Fleming (Eglinion):: Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of emulating the lethargy, indifference and any other failures of the former administration on anything.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister indicate to the house now whether before the end of this session the government will introduce a bill to enable the immediate construction of the railway to Great Slave lake, or are the people of the north expected to wait until an election year for another promise from the Prime Minister?


John George Diefenbaker: I can immediately remove the fears from the hon. member's heart. I know that during the years he wanted a railroad, but he maintained silence and kept his wishes to himself during those years. I can tell him that when a decision is made in this regard, if the hon. member has not already been informed, the house will be made aware of that decision.


Lionel Chevrier: Was the decision not made two years ago in the speech from the throne?



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANTICIPATED DURATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he will be presiding over the federal-provincial conference next week, and has he an estimate as to how long the conference will last?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this is a plenary conference to be attended by the Prime Minister and the premiers of the provinces. Accordingly


the presiding officer of the conference, in keeping with past practice, I presume will be the Prime Minister of Canada. The conference is expected to last three days, July 25, 26 and 27, and the officials have been invited to remain in readiness for any further meetings beyond that time which may be required as the result of decisions taken at the plenary session of the conference.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the announcement made by the Prime Minister that the amiable and ubiquitous Minister of Finance is to be in Paris to head the delegation to that important conference, who will represent him at those meetings of the federal-provincial fiscal conference when he will not be in attendance but will be in attendance at another conference in Europe?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member has been following closely the dates that were announced.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Very closely.


Donald Methuen Fleming: As the Prime Minister announced, I shall be attending the O.E.C.D. conference in Paris on Friday and Saturday of this week. The agenda indicates that it will be a rather busy conference. I doubt whether I will be able to leave Paris until Saturday night; but I hope, with the assistance of modern transportation, to be back in Ottawa on Sunday and to take part in the final preparations for the dominion-provincial conference and be present at it on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Can the minister inform us how long the Paris meeting is likely to last; and in his absence will there be a Canadian minister attending the conference?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the ministerial conference in Paris has been called to be held on Friday and Saturday of this week.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Only two days?


Donald Methuen Fleming: A two-day conference, yes; Friday and Saturday.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the clarification given to us by the minister, can he say whether there is any basis for the current story that the minister has agreed with the province of Ontario to give $80 million instead of $100 million if that province-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is seeking verification of a story-


An hon. Member:: Which he invented.


George Harris Hees: His own story.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a proper question for the orders of the day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, this is a matter that is of vital concern to parliament. There are stories to the effect-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that if the province of Ontario will agree to let the present arrangements stand with regard to the rental of tax fields, the federal government is prepared to meet the province of Ontario's objective to the extent of $80 million of the $118 million being asked by that province. Surely that is a very relevant question which I put to the ubiquitous Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: As I understood the hon. member's question, he asked whether that story was true. If the hon. member has a question as to the intention of the government with respect to something urgent, that is a different matter, but to ask for verification of a story is not in order. We could spend all our time in the house asking for verification of stories. It is a very salutary rule that members should not rise simply to ask for verification of newspaper reports.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the Minister of Finance, in the name of the government of Canada, propose to offer $80 million in full settlement of the claims being made by the province of Ontario.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That will depend on time and circumstance, and any announcement in that respect will be made at the proper time and in the proper place.


Mr, Marlin (Essex Easl):: In Canada, I hope.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Where else would it be made? If the hon. member should be absent from the country at the time it would still be made here.

On the orders of the day:


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister will answer the question I am now going to put. Is the Prime Minister in a position to tell the house whether the subject of unemployment will be on the agenda 79951-0-409J
Inquiries of the Ministry of the forthcoming federal-provincial conference, as Mr. St. Laurent told the house before the conference in 1955?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member was doing very nicely until he got to the latter part of his question. Such riders are out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then perhaps the Prime Minister would reply to the question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this government follows the course of not telling the provinces what they should do or what should be discussed. The agenda has not been determined.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is it true, then, that the government has made no suggestions for the agenda to the provinces?


John George Diefenbaker: There have been placed before the provinces, as the hon. gentleman must know, suggestions as to matters that might be discussed, and a request was made of the several of the premiers for their reactions thereto.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether or not this proposed agenda includes the subject of unemployment?


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. gentleman knows, before communications that have passed between the government of Canada and the provinces can be revealed, the consent of the provinces to their revelations is required.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a perfectly legitimate and proper question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of a press report in the Winnipeg Free Press of July 8 that two T-33 jets from the R.C.A.F. station at Portage la Prairie collided over Miami, Manitoba, when they were on a routine formation trip while flying from six to eight inches apart, would the minister inform the house what military advantage is gained by having planes fly so close together, with the attendant and obvious risk of collision such as occurred in this case, with the loss of two expensive aircraft valued at over $200,000?
Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National
Defence): None that I know of, Mr. Speaker, nor does any R.C.A.F. exercise or test require student pilots to fly at that distance apart.
6490	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of his reply to me, and as I know I am on fairly solid ground, would the minister mind checking to make certain that no official of his own department issued a statement in exactly the same words in which I asked the question?


Mr. Pearkes:: The question asked by the hon. member was whether there was any military advantage in aircraft flying from six to eight inches apart, and the answer I gave was that to my knowledge there is no such advantage nor are there any R.C.A.F. tests which require student pilots to fly at that short distance apart.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In view of the minister's further reply, would he look into this particular incident to make certain that such a statement did not come from his own department?


George Randolph Pearkes: I happen to know what the exercise was. These student pilots were flying one behind the other, 200 feet apart and 10 feet apart so far as altitude was concerned. There is no need for me to make further inquiries. An investigation into the accident is going on, and when the report of that investigation is received I will be able to determine what further action should be taken.



REQUEST FOR ACTION TO SPEED UP EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might be given the opportunity of stirring up a little trouble for the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Fulton:: That is not the purpose of questions on the orders of the day.


Hazen Robert Argue: In view of the imminent end of the present crop year, I wonder whether the government or the wheat board has undertaken particular action to speed up export loadings of wheat, since our exports are now running almost 20 million bushels less than at the same date last year.


Gordon Minto Churchill: All steps are being taken that are possible under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say whether this gap or deficiency of 20 million bushels is likely to be made up by the end of the crop year?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hope it will be.
IMr. Pearkes.)



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of civil defence. Will the minister comment on the suggestion of Professor C. Northcote Parkinson to the effect that the Ontario government should cancel its expenditures on civil defence, presumably due to lack of effective leadership by the federal government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Trinity is asking a federal minister to comment on advice given to a provincial government, which seems to me quite beyond the scope of ministerial responsibility.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the moneys spent by the province of Ontario are contributed in part by the federal government on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada, and surely that establishes the validity of the question put by the hon. member for Trinity.


Mr. Speaker:: I fail to see that to ask for comment on advice given by an adviser to the Ontario government is a proper question. I dare say that a proper question could be framed, but this question is not in order.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mervyn Arthur Hardie: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister tell the house what progress has been made with regard to the review of the recommendations of the civil service commission for an upward adjustment of the salaries paid to members of the R.C.M.P.?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The
matter is before treasury board at the present time.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister made any effort to obtain the services of Professor Parkinson to act as chairman of the so-called Hoover commission?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If the Prime Minister does not wish to disclose the name of the person who will head this commission to investigate the organization of the Canadian civil service, I wonder if he can inform the house when he expects the commission will be set up?


John George Diefenbaker: Without accepting the description of the field to be undertaken by a commission analogous to the Hoover commission, I might say that when we are in a position to make an announcement it will be made.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


George Harris Hees: the third reading of Bill No. C-80, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee of supply.



OLD AGE PENSIONS

Murdo William Martin: Before this motion is passed, Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to move an amendment dealing with the plight in which our old age pensioners find themselves today. I am sure there is no one in this house who has not received letters from old age pensioners describing the piteous plight in which many of them find themselves in this country today. The last action taken by this government in regard to this group of people was back in 1957, just a couple of months prior to the 1958 election. I should like to remind hon. members of some of the words that were uttered by members of the cabinet at that time, which created an impression across this country that it would be only a short time before further action would be taken on behalf of these old age pensioners.
I should like to quote from Hansard for November 4, 1957 at page 714. I am quoting now the words of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith). He said: My hon. friend made reference to adjustments necessitated by the rising costs of living. The present adjustment in the old age benefit level is itself an adjustment to meet the rising cost of living. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that if the cost of living continues to spiral in the future as it has in the past further adjustments will be necessary. This has been the experience with benefit levels ever since 1927. That is precisely why I said in my opening statement that we did not consider that there was anything final or sacred about the amount of $55 that is now proposed.
Old Age Pensions
There is another point, Mr. Speaker, which while not mentioned in the minister's words at that time, I believe has been accepted by almost everyone across this country, that is everyone who is in the plight of our old age pensioners today and who is dependent on the actions of the federal government, have a right to have considered when their plight is being discussed. I refer to the relationship of their pension to the gross national product. On more than one occasion, the Minister of Finance has pointed proudly to the fact that the gross national product has been increasing year by year, in some years more than in others.
In so far as the gross national product is concerned, many of the other groups, if you want to call them that, in our society have the ability and opportunity to take advantage of this general increase in productivity. Industry, for instance, is able to raise its prices so it can obtain a share of this increased national wealth. Labour, through the trade unions, is able to take economic action to ensure that, to some extent at least, labour gets its share of this increased wealth from year to year. However, the old age pensioners who, as I said before, are completely dependent on the action or lack of action of our federal government, have no means by which they can bargain or obtain their proper share of this increase in wealth in our country. I believe that everyone who has taken part in arbitration or conciliation boards, or who has considered the equitable distribution of wealth amongst the people in our society, has agreed that the increase in the wealth of our country should not apply to only certain groups in our society but should be considered in all groups in our society.
As the minister said some three years ago, it was the intention of the government at that time that should the cost of living continue to increase, the government would take some action in that regard. I should like to place a few figures on the record which are taken from the price index for May, 1960. I shall not deal with all the figures, but I should like to deal with the ones which most seriously affect the plight of our old age pensioners. We find that the total index in that period of time, from 1957 to May, 1960, has inceased from 121.9 to 127.4, an increase of 5.5 per cent. We find that shelter, which is something every one of our old age pensioners has to find for himself or herself through some means or other, has increased by 8.6 per cent, from 134.9 to 143.5. Clothing is an item which may not affect the old age pensioner to the same extent as some of the younger people, but this item has increased by 2.3 per cent, from 108.5 to 110.8.

Old Age Pensions
The next item is household operation, which includes fuel, furnishings, domestic gas, electricity and so on. We find this item has increased by 3.5 per cent, from 119.6 to 123.1. We go, then, to other commodities and services, which includes transportation, recreation, health care, drugs and so on. This item has increased by 11.5 per cent in that period, from 126.1 to 137.6. These increases point up the increasingly difficult situation in which our old age pensioners find themselves within this space of time since 1957, when their plight was last given some consideration.
There are only two more figures that I should like to place on the record, Mr. Speaker. They have to do with two of the cheapest cuts of meat to be found in the stores across the country. I am referring to stewing beef and hamburg. We find that from 1957 to May, 1960 stewing beef increased by 264 per cent, from 52.6 to 138.8, and that hamburg has increased by 327 per cent, from 37.9 to 124.
These few figures point out clearly that the situation of our old age pensioners, as has been shown by many letters that I have received-and I am sure other hon. members have received such letters-has deteriorated rapidly over the past three years. It is also clear that unless action is taken this situation will continue, and that unless some prodding is done by opposition members action will not be taken. At least to date, and this session is six months old, it does not appear that the government is wanting to take any action in this regard.
I would hope that at least once in this country we might have a government which would give some consideration to problems like these when a federal election was not in the offing. I would hope that this is one of the practices of the previous government that this government would discontinue. Unfortunately, however, that does not appear to be the case. The only action they took in this regard was just prior to their second election in 1958. There may be some people in the country who have no faith at all in this government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hear, hear.


Murdo William Martin: I do not know that I would go quite that far because, just in these three years that we have been here, owing to the prodding and suggestions of the opposition, the government have finally come around to taking some action in certain fields. I might say that is one respect at least in which I disagree with my colleague the hon. member for Port Arthur. While it might take some time, at least the suggestions and prodding of the opposition do have an effect on the government.

In order to back up this statement I should like to refer again to the same page of Hansard of November 4, 1957, in the second column, where we find that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is reported as follows:
I have noted also, Mr. Speaker, a number of suggestions from different quarters of the house, chiefly from C.C.F. and Social Credit members, that we should abolish altogether the restrictions on the length of temporary absences from Canada. The member for Fraser Valley wants us to pay an old age security benefit to pensioners in any country of the world. In this way, he says, our senior citizens will become ambassadors of good will for Canada. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) demanded that I have the decency to tell the house why we did not intend to abolish the provision limiting the length of absences from Canada.
We find that in these three years this suggestion has finally sunk into the mind of this government, so that during this session which is now drawing to a close they have taken this action which was suggested so strongly by members of this group some three years ago. It is my hope that they will take similar action with regard to this problem. With that thought in mind, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), I move:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
In the opinion of this house the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation to provide for an increase in the old age pension to $75 per month.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I place this amendment before the house, has any hon. member any point to make? If not, is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why I think consideration must be given to this suggestion is the change in attitude in Canada toward this matter of maintaining the elderly citizens of our country.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member for Timiskaming will permit me to interrupt him, may I say that I was perhaps a little bit slow in accepting your invitation, Mr. Speaker, to comment on the motion. I draw your attention to the fact that this amendment- which incidentally is introduced at a time when we understood there had been some understanding, at any rate, that the house would go into committee of supply today without debate-has been put in the form that in the opinion of the house the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation to provide for an increase in the old age pension.
I draw your attention to the fact that the estimates of the Department of National

Health and Welfare have already been before the house. They contemplate the continuance of a rate of $55 per month for the old age pension. The estimates were reported by the committee and the resolution to adopt the report was passed in this house some days ago. The house having taken that action, Mr. Speaker, at the present session, I therefore submit that this motion cannot now be introduced and that it is out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like, if I may, to say a word on the point raised by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance seems to be under the erroneous impression that the old age pensions are determined by the passing of the estimates of the department. I should perhaps remind the minister that the old age pensions are a statutory charge as the result of a statute, and have nothing whatever to do with the passing of the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare or of any other department. May I also say that the suggestion that a statute adopted in another session should, in the opinion of the house, be given consideration by the government is exactly in line with the traditions of the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: I will not endeavour to add anything to the point that has been made by the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate. I think it is obviously an accurate one. I was about to make it myself, so there is no need to repeat it.
I want to say that as far as I am concerned and as far as we in this group are concerned, there was no understanding about unanimous consent on this particular motion. There was consultation as to what we would do with regard to the sixth supply motion, and we said that we would not wish to move any amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: As I understand the point made by the Minister of Finance, it is that the decision of the committee to pass the vote to provide the money for payment of the old age pensions pursuant to the statute in that regard, plus the adoption of that resolution, constitutes a decision on this matter by the house which would make it improper for the house to decide the same matter again. I rather think I accept the contrary view that was expressed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, namely that the vote is really not a decision on this matter.
If I may be permitted to do so, I should like to give a little further thought to the issue which has been raised, inasmuch as
Old Age Pensions
it is an important one. I will allow the debate to proceed on that basis, and will ask the hon. member for Timiskaming to continue.


William Arnold Peters: I was pointing out that the attitude in Canada has changed over the years with regard to the support we give to the elderly citizens of our country. Fifty years ago or one hundred years ago it was generally conceded in this country that the children of parents were responsible for the maintenance of those parents, just as the parents themselves had been responsible for the maintenance of the children in their formative years.
Over the years, Mr. Speaker, our attitude has changed. We are no longer capable of looking after our parents, particularly young people who get married and raise families of their own. They are not raising them on the homestead or on the farm or in a place where they can easily take care of their parents; they are raising them far removed from where their parents lived their lifetimes and in many cases far removed from the occupations their parents had followed. Therefore there has been a change in the method of supporting the older citizens of this country and a major change in the attitude toward children supporting their parents.
This has been a gradual change. There is no question but that some of the citizens of this country today are looking after their parents in exactly the same manner as their grandparents and their great grandparents were taken care of, but many of our citizens are being taken care of only through general contributions made by the Canadian people as a whole.
While the old age pension has been increased over the years, it has not been increased with any formula in mind and in many cases has not borne much relationship to the need of the old age pensioners. I think it could legitimately be argued that when the old age pension was first introduced in Canada the $20 paid at that time was probably greater in its purchasing ability than the $55 we now pay our senior citizens. In this respect I think we should congratulate the government, and stress on behalf of many of the old age pensioners the appreciation they have of the changes which have been made in the old age pension act.
The hon. member for Timmins pointed out a few moments ago that in referring to the matter of old age pensions a year ago the minister said that many of the changes we recommended could not take place. Yet in the short period of one year we have seen the old age pensioner put into a much better

Old Age Pensions
position in some respects than he was a year ago. I refer of course to the amendments passed this year which allow the old age pensioners to live in other countries than Canada on pretty nearly a permanent basis.
In changing our attitude toward the maintenance of our elderly citizens, I believe we must also take into consideration how we will finance them. At the present time we say in this amendment that the amount which the old age pensioners receive should be $75, and I suggest that this is only a basic pension and will not be sufficient to keep a person in some of the cities in Canada today. I would also think that $75 paid to an old age pensioner who has his own home and lives on a little piece of land may be quite sufficient to maintain him in a very reasonable and respectable manner.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we come to the problem of how we are to finance this change. When the contributions were set up the old age pension was $40 a month. Since that time we have increased it twice but have made no change or very little change in the method of financing it. It seems to me that we should give some consideration now, not in four or five years' time, to some of the suggestions made in the Clark report, to some of the conclusions they came to and the comparisons they made between plans in the United States and Great Britain and some of the European countries and plans in Canada at the present time.
I also think we should take into consideration some of the arguments for a contributory plan in Canada or a plan which in the main comes from general revenues, with the advantages of both types of plans, and then come to a conclusion as to which plan will suit the immediate needs of the Canadian people in order to establish a decent and respectable pension for our senior citizens. I think the trend which has developed under which we collectively look after them on an individual basis makes it imperative for all Canadians to give to the old age pensioners and the senior citizens of this country an opportunity to gain the most out of the years of their retirement and to take the best advantage of the money we make available for this purpose. At the same time this will allow them to make as great a contribution toward that retirement as they can during the years they have to support this type of program.
Mr. Speaker, if we wait until the day when it is absolutely necessary to pay our citizens $100 or $150 a month for maintenance, it will be too late to change the method of contributions to allow you or me to contribute toward a retirement fund, and we

will be asking our children to contribute to something we should have changed in order to allow us to establish a better retirement pension.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that is what the old age pension is now becoming; it is becoming a retirement fund on a national basis. I think in recommending that the pension be raised to $75 we are only establishing the minimum which will apply now, but which will not be applicable in another year or in a very short period of time after. I believe in making this recommendation it is absolutely necessary to give consideration to the method by which we raise the money. It is true that we took the ceiling off the $60 and raised it to $90, but this is still a very unrealistic figure. In my opinion that ceiling should be removed entirely, because this is one of the methods we will have to use in order to raise the pension to $75 if we are going to continue the same type of scheme.
However, at the same time I think it is absolutely necessary for us to give close consideration to the whole matter of retirement funds, including our present national pension plan. This of course should take into consideration the plans now being supported by the Canadian people, whether they are of the insurance investment type or plans operated on a joint basis by collective agreements between labour and management, superannuation plans and all the other plans which go to make up our national retirement schemes.
In my opinion we are moving in the right direction; where our senior citizens ought not to depend on their children for their bread and butter in their retirement years; where we have set up a scheme under which they will be self-reliant and able to continue making a contribution to Canada. I am not one of those people who believe you can say that a person is too old to be of any value at 40, 50, 60, 70 or even 90 years of age. Some people at 90 years of age make a great contribution to the welfare of the country, and I do not think we can set an age limit to it. It is distressing to hear that people as young as 35 seeking jobs in industry are refused employment because of existing pension plan arrangements, which are based on the age of the company's employees and render the contributions too high. The entire Canadian retirement program should be brought under one roof, as it were. There is no better place to bring it than under the roof of the federal government. This will not necessarily eliminate all other plans, but will serve to eliminate those that are poor and unsuitable and those with no vesting rights.

We should pay our old age pensioners a reasonable amount based on the cost of living and the standard of living to which we are accustomed. It is not sufficient to provide old age pensioners with a roof over their heads and a subsistence diet consisting of bread, milk, butter and a small amount of meat. In arriving at a figure we should take into consideration the gross national product and the ability of Canadians to contribute to a plan that will enable our senior citizens to retire on decent standards. The time has come to consider this.
In my dealings with employees in various industries throughout the years I have never encountered any reluctance on their part to contribute to retirement funds, whether it be the old age pension scheme or a pension plan between the employee and employer. In every case, however, I found a great resentment on the part of the employee concerning those conditions that made it necessary for him to remain in the same job in the same plant under the same employer for a period of 25 years or more before receiving any benefit from the pension plan. These plans should be national in scope. People who retire should be granted a basic pension of $75 a month, and it would be advantageous for the Canadian economy and in the best interests of the security of our people if they could have a supplementary retirement pension equal to half the maximum salary they earned during their lifetime. Where the government contributed to the pension plan the $75 would be part of the retirement fund.
There is not an old age pensioner in the country who is not grateful to the Conservative government, and particularly to the Prime Minister, because an increase in the old age pension was granted at a time when pensioners themselves and Canadians in general felt that the pensioners had been slighted by the payment of a $6 increase under the Liberal administration. Because the Conservative government granted an increase to $55 and introduced useful provisions affecting pensioners resident outside the country, old age pensioners are still in sympathy with the government. The government therefore has a responsibility toward them to further increase the pension in keeping with present needs.
I do not ask the government to adopt $75 as a fixed figure. It could be increased to this amount today, but within a month or six months if the Canadian dollar continued to decline it might be that $75 would be too much and the economy could not bear it. On the other hand the rising cost of food, rent, clothing and medical care has made it imperative that the old age pensioner now receive $75. The government should examine 79951-0-410
Old Age Pensions
more closely than it has the recommendations of the Clark report and conduct an investigation of the feasibility of their implementation. The problem of old age pensioners could be solved in a way that would not cost the country too much money.
I sympathize with the argument that we cannot increase the pension under the present system of collecting moneys. If that is true the government should examine other methods of financing a program of this kind. A reasonable old age pension should be introduced in addition to a national portable contributory pension plan that would enable employees to retire with a pension equal to at least half their maximum salary earned during their working lifetime regardless of what industry or field they were engaged in.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this resolution gives us an opportunity of discussing a matter which this parliament must consider from time to time as one of its first and most important duties in the field of social welfare. An examination of our senior citizens reveals that year by year they will increase in numbers. The number of people in Canada who will reach age 65 in 1970 will present a very considerable problem to governments on both the federal and provincial levels. We welcome the opportunity to remind the government of its responsibilities in connection with assistance to our senior citizens.
Some of the remarks made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat were not too easy to follow in view of the definite character of the amendment before the house, wherein it is proposed that there shall be an increase in the old age pension to $75 per month.
The hon. member, unwittingly or not, suggested that this amount might be lower, depending upon the circumstances. He did not have the same definiteness in his statement that one certainly found in the observations made by the proposer. It seems to me that the resolution must be approached from two points of view; (a) on its merits and (b) in so far as the responsibility of the government is concerned. It raises issues which we have to face.
The government certainly has a responsibility in this matter in the light of the assurances which it gave to the Canadian people. I hold in my hand a statement of the national leader of the Progressive Conservative party in Canada, issued in 1957.


An hon. Member:: Let us see the picture.

Old Age Pensions


Paul Joseph James Martin: Someone says "Let us see the picture". There is the picture. I quote:
It's time for a Diefenbaker government. A new national policy.
At the end of this pamphlet is the signature of the leader. Here is what the leader said and repeated in 1957:
Human betterment is of the essence of government and we intend to maintain all social security measures; we intend to maintain a high standard of social security to keep pace with the rising productivity of the nation.
That is the argument put forward by the hon. member for Timmins. The gross national product has increased. That being so, our pensions to our senior citizens should be increased, pursuant to the assurance given the Canadian people by the Prime Minister of this country.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They were.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says they were. They were two years ago, but we are now dealing with the situation which arises as a result of the small increase in the gross national product. My friend says they were; while it is true they were, let me remind him that the taxation policies of my hon. friend took back over 75 per cent of whatever increase was provided.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is untrue; it is so silly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not untrue; it is a fact.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is silly.


Murdo William Martin: As a result of the tax policies of my hon. friend, who now interrupts, whatever increases were provided in the basic old age pension were taken away by policies of the very government that takes credit for the increase.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I say that is an untrue statement, utterly untrue.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend always embellishes his interruptions so substantially with those generalizations which more and more put him in the position where we are not to regard his interruptions or take them seriously.


An hon. Member:: Nor yours.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Murdo William Martin: When I am finished, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is very appropriate at this moment.


Murdo William Martin: All right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Was the hon. member not a member of a government which in 1957 said that an increase from $40 to $46 a month in the old age pension was quite adequate?


Murdo William Martin: Let me tell my hon. friend that I was a member of a government that provided $46 of the present pension; I was a member of a government-


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not fair.


Murdo William Martin: -that put on the
statute books of our country every single act of social legislation which is now in existence. I was a member of a government that provided the basis of all of the amendments brought in by this government in the field of social welfare.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member answer my question about the $46 a month?


Murdo William Martin: I was not a member of a government supporting this statement, again signed by the leader of the Conservative party, who said:
The Conservative party proposes to set the amount at a figure high enough to meet the needs of our older citizens and these other deserving persons, and to make necessary adjustments thereafter on a cost of living basis.
I was not a member of a government that made that kind of promise.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You stopped at $46.


Murdo William Martin: The minister
always finds himself embarrassed, and he continually interrupts in that usual, dignified manner, so characteristic of ministers of finance in this country. He and his colleagues did pledge to the Canadian people that they would increase old age pensions in accordance with the increase in the cost of living-


Donald Methuen Fleming: We did increase old age pensions.


Murdo William Martin: -and with the rising productivity of the nation. My hon. friend was also a member of a government-


Donald Methuen Fleming: What about $46?


Murdo William Martin: -that said this:
A Progressive Conservative government will consider expanding the present old age pension system by the addition of an insurance system similar to that in the United States. The United States plan of old age and survivor insurance provides average monthly benefits on retirement of $76 for single workers, $128 for aged married couples without dependants, and $65 for aged widows.
The Prime Minister said in this signed statement:
The average contribution per person is $27.08 not much more than the average contribution by Canadians of $22.70 for the old age pension.

Listen to this:
A Conservative government will consider implementing such a plan-


Donald Methuen Fleming: It did.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -"in addition to" the present pensions system.
My hon. friend says it did. My hon. friend, of course, does not know what he is talking about.


An hon. Member:: You do not know yourself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister continued:
The United States plan is "worthy of the highest commendation."
The Minister of Finance says that this government has adopted this United States plan in Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, I did not; nothing of the kind.


Murdo William Martin: You were not listening.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member explodes let me say to him-


Murdo William Martin: I have the floor.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order,-


Paul Joseph James Martin: You may make your speech later; there is no point of order here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have at least to listen to the minister to see whether there is a point of order; 1 cannot decide it in advance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member is attributing to me a statement that I did not make. He has just been asking a series of rhetorical questions. I tried to ask him a question which he did not wish to answer, and I made a statement in regard to this series of rhetorical questions as to what this government had done in the light of promises made. That is what I commented on, and he is seeking now to distort my comments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As we both anticipated, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend had no real point of order in mind.
With regard to this United States proposal, it would resolve the problem if the government would carry out its promise to implement the United States old age survivor system. Then this particular amendment would not be necessary, because, as the Prime Minister said in the promises which he made to the Canadian people, amounts of over $75 a month would be paid, depending upon the 79951-0-4101
Old Age Pensions
rate of contribution to that scheme, a scheme that is fully contributory. What is the situation? Not only has the government failed to implement its promises-


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have implemented our promises; we raised the pension.


Murdo William Martin: I am talking about the United States system. When my hon. friend says that he is ignoring the terrible contempt which this government has for the Canadian people and for the Canadian parliament in the repeated replies given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare with regard to the Clark report.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What about the $46 a month?


Murdo William Martin: In 1958 the Prime Minister of this country stood in this house and said that he wanted to implement the United States system. This was shortly before the election of that year, and to that end he was going to appoint Professor Huson to make a report on the United States system. That report had to be completed in four months, which coincided, as a matter of fact, with the election date, in order that the government could implement this United States old age security system.
What is the situation? Professor Huson said he could not make a report in four months. Professor Clark was appointed in his place. The election took place, and there was no concern on the part of the Prime Minister or on the part of the ubiquitous Minister of Finance to see that this report was prepared in four months. Only two weeks ago, after almost two years of study, the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that this report continues to receive study by the government.
If the government want to implement their promises, let the government act on the Clark report. Let them act in accordance with what the Prime Minister said, that the United States plan is worthy of the highest commendation, and in that way they will be able in part to meet the particular proposal involved in this amendment. Does the government now intend to implement the Clark report? I ask the Minister of Finance, who will have the final say in this matter as the watchdog of the treasury, does he stand in the way of the desire of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to see that we have the Clark report implemented in Canada? Is the Minister of Finance, who seeks to extricate himself from his present embarrassment by the synthetic smile he now has on his face-

Old Age Pensions


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not a smile, it is a laugh. I am laughing at you; I cannot help it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does he propose to continue to stand in the way of the realization of this plan? Is he in favour of this plan?


Donald Methuen Fleming: What a sham.


Murdo William Martin: Is the government in favour of the plan?


Donald Methuen Fleming: What a sham you are putting on here.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend says, "What a sham".


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Murdo William Martin: I say to my hon. friend, who continually, and rightly so, is proud of his integrity in public life, does he think it is proper for a political party to make the kind of promises that I have read, promises that were made to the Canadian people-


Donald Methuen Fleming: And carried out.


Murdo William Martin: -and then two years later look upon them in a lighthearted manner and say that they are continuing to study this report?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Those promises were carried out to the letter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend continues to say that the United States plan has been adopted by the government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; it has been carefully studied. That is the point.


Murdo William Martin: That is not what the Prime Minister said. He said that the United States plan was worthy of the highest commendation. He said that after four months' study we would see to the adoption of that plan. What is the position of our party on this subject? We stated our position in 1958 at a national convention.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Forty six dollars a month.


Murdo William Martin: That position is immediate consideration of a national contributory pension scheme co-ordinated with existing provisions for retirement and old age security pensions, to begin at 65 and to be based upon federal government contributions as well as upon contributions of employees, employers and self-employed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Murdo William Martin: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why, if he advc [DOT] cates that policy today-


Murdo William Martin: I said that is our party's position now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, first of all perhaps the hon. member would indicate whether he subscribes to his party's position. If so, would he tell us why, in view of his boasts about his record when he was minister of national health and welfare, he did not inaugurate such a policy in all the years when he was minister of that department?


Murdo William Martin: That is a fair question. I will say this to the minister, that he will not be able to find any assurance that I gave or that Mr. St. Laurent gave or that any members of that administration gave that was not fully implemented.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then you did not
advocate such a policy in those days?


Murdo William Martin: The record is an impressive one-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Forty six dollars a month.


Murdo William Martin: -family allowances, unemployment insurance, disability pensions, the veterans' charter, old age assistance, national hospital insurance. Most of these measures, in one form or another, were opposed by the party-


Mr. Johnson:: Don't forget the bubble gum tax.


Murdo William Martin: -that now seeks to establish itself as the champion of social welfare.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is untrue.


Murdo William Martin: We have not had one expression of view from the government about its position in the matter of portable pensions, one of the live topics now in the field of social welfare. We do not know where the government stands. The position of this party and the position of the party immediately to our right have been expressed, but this government has given no indication where it stands on this matter. Are we to go on day after day, two years after the election, with the Clark report gathering dust on the desk of the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Is it going to lie there forever, or is the government going to wait until the eve of an election?


An hon. Member:: That is what you did.


Murdo William Martin: The hon. member says that is what we did. If he will examine the record he will see that everything we did in the field of old age security was done



I960

[Stage Direction]
long before any election. We should not be taking advantage of the misery of human beings simply because of political considerations.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question? Would he square the statement he has just made with the fact that his hospital insurance measure, for which we waited from 1919 to 1957, was actually brought in on the eve of the 1957 election?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend knows, of course, that the hospital insurance scheme, depending as it did upon provincial action, could not have been dealt with in any other way.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You set up impossible conditions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Also, if it had not
been for the obstruction and opposition of the Conservative party then in opposition we would not have had some of the difficulties we encountered with certain provinces.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is utterly untrue, and you know it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Before calling it one o'clock, I am forced to observe that there was perhaps no one who stood more in the way of legitimate social reform in this house during the last decade than my laughing, ubiquitous friend, the Minister of Finance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is an interup-tion in the sham performance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair. As previously ordered, the house will resume its sittings at three o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 3 p.m.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Speaking on the particular subject to which this amendment directs our attention, I am sure I am warranted in referring to the fact that we have just come from Laurier House, where the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), as well as members of both houses of parliament, attended a ceremony at which the Prime Minister unveiled a commemorative plaque. I could not help but think when we attended the ceremony how appropriate the present discussion is. In my judgment the matters that are before us now received their foundation in no more effective manner than by the contributions made by the former leader of the
Old Age Pensions
Liberal party, Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, who said on July 25, 1944:
I have fought for measures of social security and national well-being in season and out of season, in parliament and out of parliament, in this country and in other countries. I have fought for them wherever the opportunity presented itself, and win or lose in the future, I intend to fight for them to the end of my days.
We in this party, having contributed, as I believe we have, in the way I indicated before the recess, to the development of a responsible system of social welfare in Canada, therefore are vitally concerned that, whatever treatment we are able to accord to our senior citizens should be on the basis of need and our capacity to meet that need. We have stated our position, in the light of new and developing situations, in our platform, as enunciated at the national Liberal convention which selected the Leader of the Opposition as the leader of the Liberal party. We affirmed the extension of old age assistance to unmarried women and widows of 60 years of age. We suggested the introduction of new pension plans with provision for the early vesting of benefits, so that if an employee changed his employment he would retain the advantages of pension contributions previously made by him and by his employer, so that in effect the pension would follow the man.
As I mentioned this morning in commenting on the position of the government in relation to the Clark report, we went on record as saying we were in favour of the consideration of a national contributory pension scheme, co-ordinated with the existing provisions for retirement and old age security, the pension to begin at age 65 and to be based upon federal government contributions as well as upon contributions by employees, employers and selfemployed.
In the last enunciation of our objectives we have varied from the United States survivor's scheme, because that scheme is based entirely, both in so far as administrative costs and benefits are concerned, on premiums paid by employers and employees. It seems to us that the realization of the recommendation in the amendment could be met, not entirely but could be met, by the implementation of that scheme based upon the consideration given to it by the Clark report.
We recognize that this is an important matter, but in the light of the assurances given by the government it is difficult to understand how such a report, now over two years old, should not have encouraged the responsible minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to say something more than that he was studying the report. There is a limit to one's capacity to study. There certainly must be a limit to the time a government can be

Old Age Pensions
allowed to study a problem, particularly in the light of the assurances given us in 1958.
There are other considerations that should be borne in mind in discussing this matter, one of which relates to certain classes of our senior citizens who are not covered by the universal system. There is a co-operative arrangement between the two senior levels of government, under which some of these senior citizens are provided for by basic grants by the federal and provincial governments, that is for those 65 and over. In some provinces supplementary payments are made, and in some provinces the supplemental allowances are greater than in other provinces.
I regret that the Minister of Finance, to whom my earlier remarks were more pointedly directed, is not in his seat at the moment, undoubtedly because he is preoccupied with government business elsewhere. I am going to suggest to him that when he meets the provinces on July 25 he will have an opportunity of learning from them what further they may be disposed to do, and of telling them what further may be done by the federal government to meet the need that does exist among so many of our senior citizens.
Of course the Minister of Finance will be interested in meeting the premier of Quebec, who has announced the intention of his government to provide supplementary allowances, I believe for the first time in that province. There will be an opportunity presented to the other provinces, no doubt, to indicate their willingness to meet the problems that confront our senior citizens.
This whole problem must, of course, be viewed in the light of what has been done to date. We are now spending more on health and welfare measures on federal account, I believe, than in any other department of government, more even than for national defence. I am not ashamed to think I was a member of the government that was responsible for programs involving by far the largest portion of this annual fixed expenditure, designed to provide in our free, highly industrialized society through family allowances, disability pensions, old age assistance, old age security, blindness allowance, the veterans' charter, unemployment insurance or hospital insurance, assistance to individuals who require such assistance.
I have said that I believe the job of trying to develop an over-all system of social security is not done. Indeed, perhaps it will never be done. It must be faced in the light of new situations. I say now to the government that in spite of the fact that we have

the universal old age pension system based as it is on the non-means test principle, there are many individuals in our country- and I am not saying that this is a new fact- many elderly people, who still need additional assistance.
I am sure that a careful analysis and examination of this problem, particularly with the provinces, will reveal that in the case of our senior citizens one of the most effective ways of giving that assistance, particularly in necessitous cases, is with regard to medical care. That is a subject that is now receiving vigorous current discussion in the United States. The problem is as current and as applicable there as it is here. There are many thousands of our senior citizens who need medical care assistance, which in so many thousands of instances they cannot provide by themselves.
It will be no answer to what I am saying to suggest that these problems have always existed, and that the situation I have outlined today is one that was existing at least in part at the time the government of which I was a member was in power. That, of course, is the argument that is often made. I simply reiterate that we in this party have no reason to be ashamed of what we did in that field. I repeat that every single act on our statute books in the matter of social welfare was placed there either under Mackenzie King or under Louis St. Laurent. That is the fact.
I have not denied that this government has brought in amendments to these basic acts which have provided additional assistance. That, of course, is true. Any government in office, surely, in the face of existing situations would meet problems that face it in this particular area from time to time. But it is not the fact, and it is inaccurate to suggest that the concept of social security we now have in this country arises out of policies originally initiated by hon. gentlemen opposite. That is not historically a fact, and there is no one in this house who will deny what I have said.
The problem now is what to do immediately. That is one of the projections of this amendment. I have suggested that one of the ways to meet this problem in part would be for the government now, two years after the event and one and a half years after the report has been placed in the hands of the responsible minister, to tell us whether or not the government now believes that the United States survivor system is one that should be made applicable to us in Canada. If it is applicable, then why should there be any hesitation on the part of the government in saying so? If it cannot be implemented forthwith, it cannot be because of



[Stage Direction]
any pecuniary obligation that would be imposed on the government of the day, because that system does not call for payment in any particular from the government at all. The payments under that system are provided in their entirety by the contributors and the beneficiaries, the employers and the employees. Hence there would be no additional charge on the exchequer.
There may be other reasons why the government does not wish to bring the program forward. Those reasons ought to be stated to us because, a report having been received such a long time ago, I believe a government stands close to being in contempt of parliament when it does not reveal its intentions under the circumstances attending this particular report.
I also think the government, when it comes to consider what it is going to do when it meets with the provinces, might consider whether it is not prepared now to embark upon certain particular procedures in cooperation with the provinces in order to provide for necessitous cases that exist under our old age security system, the universal plan and our old age assistance program. This was pointed out by Mr. Cecile, the minister of welfare in the province of Ontario. It was pointed out vigorously by Mr. Bland, the deputy minister, who said only two months ago that they were not satisfied with the administration of the social welfare policies of the federal government. They had reference particularly to this matter of old age assistance and old age security. They both stand as proponents of the American plan.
I think we are entitled to know now if the government has gone back on its earlier conception, whether it disagrees with the position taken by the province of Ontario, or what steps it is prepared to take to meet at least these necessitous cases.
We will be told, of course, that this government increased the old age security payments from $46 to $55 a month. There is no doubt about that fact. But I would also point out that of that $55, $46 had been contributed by policies, on behalf of the Canadian taxpayers, conceived by Liberal governments, and that most of the advantage of the additional $9 was withdrawn by the additional taxation imposed on the people of Canada by the Minister of Finance in the three budgets he has introduced in this house.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this amendment affords us the opportunity of eliciting from the government its views as to what it is prepared to do in the field of assisting the
Old Age Pensions
aged of our country, in providing for portable pensions, and to implement a report which it said had to be prepared within four months, so important and so demanding was the situation at that time.
That was in 1953. The situation has not changed. The gross national product has increased slightly. There has been an increase in the cost of living. We were assured that when there was an increase in the cost of living and when there was an increase in the gross national product, there would be corresponding increases in the rate of pension benefits. Those were not assurances given by us. Those were assurances given by those who now sit on the treasury benches. Under our system of government there can be no other course open than for the government to reply to these allegations and to our request for a clear enunciation of policy, something that is long overdue.
(Translation):
Mr. J. J. Martel (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part this morning in the discussion on the amendment moved by the C.C.F. group in this house, I have no wish to pose as an expert in this matter; however, I would like to express my views with regard to the matter of old age pensions.
It is a matter which has given rise to discussions in various circles, in the past few years and to a wide variety of opinions.
I have here before me the expression of some views which I shall try to summarize so as not to waste the time of the house, as we consider the matter more fully.
As pointed out by the previous speakers, the report of the Clark commission was tabled in this house and has been referred to on various occasions. Previously, and since the beginning of this session, several questions have been asked on this subject. They are to be found in the English edition of Hansard on pages 166, 1793, 3725-26, 4059-60, 4558-59.
Mr. Speaker, before summing up the various opinions I have before me, I would like to quote a few words referring to Catholicism and social justice from the magazine Relations of February 1959. Among others the article contains the following words:
Those truths were recalled by Pius XII on March 11, 1951, in his address to the Spanish workers:
Without the church, the social question is insoluble; but the church alone cannot solve it. She needs the co-operation of the intellectual, economic and technical forces of public powers. As far as the church is concerned, vast and well considered programs have been submitted as a religious and moral basis for every social order . .. When the labour movement is assigned aims which the church cannot approve they are merely illusory

Old Age Pensions
values to which truth, human dignity, social justice and even the true welfare of all citizens are sacrificed.
And the magazine Relations adds:
Those words adequately sum up the relation of Catholicism with social justice. Though the achievement of social justice is not, strictly speaking, a function of Catholicism, the Catholic church cannot ignore this function because, up to a point, social justice conditions the very success of its spiritual mission. On the other hand, social justice alone can only achieve partial and invariably disappointing results. In that field, as in all truly human activity, it remains the ferment which leavens the dough. Catholicism alone directs human effort towards those real values on which the safeguard and the promotion of truth, human dignity and social justice ultimately depends.
Well, this security legislation with regard to our senior citizens, certainly provides social security and should be unreservedly approved.
Now, as I explained a moment ago, varying opinions were expressed on the matter, ranging from an extreme to the other, according to the point of view adopted.
I have here statements of policy and resolutions adopted by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in 1958 and 1959, relating, so to speak, to the old age pensions act and more directly to government annuities which, according to the chambers of commerce, should be taken into account. Here is what we read, among other things:
Government annuities
WHEREAS at the time when Canadian government annuities were instituted, old age pension was not in force in Canada, and it was desirable that Canadians be helped in saving money for their old age; WHEREAS since the coming into force of the old age pension act a certain protection is assured; WHEREAS old age pensions are costing the government large sums of money and, on the other hand, government annuities call for annual disbursements which tend to increase and which are a further burden upon the taxpayers, while being of benefit to only a small part of the population which, in any case, is entitled to old age pensions;
Be it therefore resolved that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce urges the federal government:
1.	To cease all advertising of government annuities, and to dismiss or transfer the personnel employed for that purpose.
2.	To discontinue group annuities.
Of course, that is an opinion with which I do not entirely agree, but which was expressed by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. That body would like government annuities to be discontinued believing that the Old Age Security Act and the Old Age Assistance Act, now in force, adequately protect our senior citizens.
Several other opinions which I do not necessarily support were also expressed on this matter but there is one, among others,

which was expressed, in February 1959, by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce about social measures coming under the government, and whose benefits extend to all of Canada. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read into the record that opinion which I find on page 11 of the brief submitted by the Chamber of Commons. Here it is:
(Text):
Social welfare.
In the field of social welfare the chamber believes that a careful distinction must be drawn between what is socially desirable as an ultimate aim and what can be achieved without damaging the system that makes our social welfare advances possible. Any additions to the already expensive welfare programs should be carefully assessed, not only with regard to their initial costs, but also with regard to their foreseeable growth and supplementary requirements over the years. In principle, the chamber believes that any additional welfare expenditures should be delayed until the full impact of present commitments can be assessed. Individuals should be encouraged to make every effort to provide for their own future and protect themselves against ordinary hazards.
(Translation):
Of course, Mr. Chairman, the latter view as expressed to the ministers of finance and of national revenue in February 1959 is somewhat at variance with the view I quoted a moment ago, which is also part of resolutions and policies approved by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and which calls, so to speak, for the abolition of government annuities on the grounds that the old age security act and the old age assistance act now take care of the needs of older people when they have to retire.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, there are other problems related to this matter of pensions, for instance the problem of providing employment for older workers, namely those who have reached the age of 60 or 65, or other people who are refused jobs by reason of their age. It has been found that a good many citizens between 60 and 65 years of age were deprived of any form of social assistance because of the fact that they could not get old age assistance pensions and were not eligible for the old age security pension. Campaigns have been launched in that connection by various organizations, such as the Chambers of Commerce, labour unions and even the Department of Labour, to encourage employers to continue employing such people-
(Text):


Murdo William Martin: Would the hon. member permit a question?

(Translation):


Jean-Jacques Martel: Yes.
(Text):


Murdo William Martin: If it would be fair for the chamber of commerce to decide the old age pensioners' pensions, would it not be equally fair for the old age pensioners to decide the profits of the chamber of commerce?


Jean-Jacques Martel: Old Age Pensions
each and fairness to all. I do not share the view, nor does the Conservative party, of those who are opposed to all forms of social justice. Individuals and groups will disagree, of course, as to what is fair to them from their own special viewpoint. It is the duty of government to reconcile these views in the general interest and to take action to achieve for all Canadians the highest measure of social justice within the resources of the nation."
In keeping with this concept, social justice payments to individual Canadians in every category of assistance have increased substantially since 1956-57.
In the three major categories of old age pensions, family allowances and unemployment insurance, the estimated increase for the current year compared with the last year of the Liberals is 50 per cent- from about $1 billion to $1] billion.
And it will probably exceed this amount by the end of this year.
Old age pension payments are up in these years from $379 million to $578 million, largely due to the action of the present government in increasing the pension from $46 to $55 per month.
Of course, other measures were passed by the Conservative government; but only old age pensions are referred to here.
As far as old age pensions and the proposed amendment are concerned, I must say that many of my constituents have written urging that those pensions be tied to the cost of living and suggesting that they be paid from age 60.
All those representations are surely legitimate, especially if we consider that old age pensioners have worked hard for the greatness of this country, and that they now need increased assistance, apart from the fact that the medical care needed by many of them is more expensive. In fact, the cost of medical care has increased a great deal in the last few years.
I trust that the present government which, in the past, has shown its understanding of this problem and which, as I said earlier, and as the hon. member for Essex East himself mentioned, has increased old age pensions from $46 to $55 a month, will take these matters under consideration and will find an answer to those problems, so that our senior citizens may live happier in their old age and be in a position to pay for the medical care they need. As I have pointed out, there are unquestionably categories of persons who need a pension at a certain age, and I am sure that the present government will see to it.
(Text):


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, although I realize it is within the rules for an amendment to be moved to the motion to go into supply in the way in which it was done today, I feel it is very

unfair to hon. members to have this amendment moved without any notice and without an opportunity to prepare to speak on this particular subject.
This is a matter that is very much in the minds of all hon. members, because the plight of our senior citizens is always in our thoughts. I listened carefully to the speech made by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin). One of the difficulties with regard to this amendment is the setting of the exact figure of $75 a month to which old age pensions should be raised. I listened to hear what the hon. member for Timiskaming had to say about it. He did mention that $75 may be a reasonable figure. He also went on to say that some other figure might be a reasonable one. This is the difficulty in which I find myself, and I am sure all other hon. members are in the same position. We must have some guide, something on which the amount of pension shall be fixed, rather than picking out of the air a figure such as $75 a month, which is quite an increase over the present figure.
When he was speaking about this matter the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) said that when his government was in power it did not give increases such as the Conservative government gave; he also said it did not even promise any. I think the effect of his speech is that the Liberal government did not even consider any type of plan except the one they introduced in 1957, just prior to the federal election, when they gave an increase for political purposes, the very thing the hon. member for Essex East was trying to accuse the government of this morning.
No doubt the amendment is one that meets with universal approval in principle. The welfare of our own people is something that we must all consider from time to time. It is not sufficient, as has been mentioned, just to think of it at election time and give something in the nature of an increase which might be considered as a vote-getting proposition.
As has been mentioned, the Clark report was brought in after considerable investigation of the systems which are in existence in the United States in regard to old age security and social security generally. I think it is quite unfair to say that the present government promised that when they obtained power they would adopt the United States system. I am positive that no one could take any such meaning from any speeches made during the election campaign. We did not say that. I am sure no one said that if elected this government would bring in the same system that exists in the United States. However, the government did say that that system had a lot of merit and that it would be studied. That study has been made and a report has been brought in. Apparently it has not yet

been implemented, but it does form the basis of such plans as the government may have for an over-all social security plan in this country.
While it is difficult to wait, yet I think we are bound to wait until all the factors have been considered before we say that the old age pension should be $75 a month, and just leave it at that. There must be some guidance, something to assist us in arriving at such a formula.
In connection with the pension of $55 a month which was brought in in 1957, at that time the vast majority of the old people of Canada felt that this pension allowance was quite sufficient, and they were very happy with it. Admittedly, in different parts of the country it affects people differently. A good many of the people in the rural sections of the country, such as Parry Sound-Muskoka which I represent, if they are retired with their own homes and have reasonable municipal taxes, are quite capable of getting along on $110 a month for groceries and clothing. A good many people find this to be quite adequate and they have so expressed themselves to me on many occasions.
On the other hand, there are people in other areas who find it impossible to get along on that amount. The people in the urban areas find that they can hardly rent premises at that figure, and certainly they have very little for rent and food unless they happen to own their own homes. Therefore it is not an easy thing to fix an amount which will be suitable for everyone. But I do say that in 1957 the vast majority of the people of this country felt that $55 a month was sufficient. I am not suggesting that it is sufficient today.
I have always felt that pensions for the old people should be fixed on the basis of the consumer price index or, as we call it, the cost of living index. The cost of living index has been reasonably stable over the past few years, yet it is important that we consider it. Therefore over the noon hour I made some inquiries about the cost of living index over the past few years to see what we ought to do in this house with reference to increasing the old age pension.
I have stated on several occasions that I felt any increases to be given should be tied to the consumer price index, so that if prices and the cost of living go up the old age pensioner will have his pension increased a similar amount. As we all know, the consumer price index covers a large number of factors. The figures I have obtained are for the over-all cost of living index as published by the dominion bureau of statistics, which I think is the most reliable index we can use.
Old Age Pensions
In June, 1956 the consumer price index in Canada stood at 117.8. As all hon. members know, this is based on an index of 100 which was re-established in 1949. From June, 1956 to June, 1957 it showed a very substantial increase to 121.6. This was an increase of nearly four points in the one year. I do not think it has any relation whatsoever to the matter, but it was the last year of the Liberal administration. Then in June of 1958 the index took another jump and increased to 125.1.
In the following year, 1959, it hardly moved, rising from 125.1 to 125.9. The increase from 1958 to 1959 was very slight. The dominion bureau of statistics has just issued the current figure in a release dated July 8, 1960. We find that for June of this year the over-all consumer price index stood at 127.6, or an increase of little over 1J points. It is stated in the release respecting the June consumer price index that the household operation index declined fractionally from May to June, but that in the over-all picture there was an increase of 0.2 per cent.
Taking these figures, Mr. Speaker, I have tried to work out what we should do on this basis. In other words, where would the rate of pension now stand if it were increased in proportion to the cost of living index? Taking the June, 1957 pension figure at $55, the consumer price index at that time was 121.6, and if an escalator clause had been inserted at that time the old age pension would now be $57.75 on the basis of the June, 1960 consumer price index of 127.6. In other words there would have been an increase of $2.75 in the amount of the pension payable each month.


Murdo William Martin: Would the hon.
member permit a question?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Certainly.


Murdo William Martin: On the basis of the argument the hon. member is developing now, does the hon. member think the amount of $55 granted in 1957 was adequate for old age pensioners at that time?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I thought I had stated what my view was in my earlier remarks. I said that in some cases it was quite adequate and in others it was not, depending on the location in which the old age pensioner lived.


Mr. Howard:: It would be all right for
former prime minister St. Laurent.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: In suggesting that the amount would now be $57.75 I want to make it very clear that I am not proposing we should raise the pension today to $57.75. This is merely a comparison to indicate that the figure of $75 bears no relation whatsoever to the amount of the pension in 1957. Perhaps

Old Age Pensions
the figure of $55 was inadequate in certain cases, but if we use that as a basis the pension certainly would not have risen as high as $75 at this time.
I have some difficulty in opposing the amendement today because of the rather unfortunate experience of a former minister of finance, Mr. Harris, who also based an increase on a nice mathematical calculation which resulted in an increase of $6, and which turned out to be a most unfortunate sum of money and a most unsatisfactory adjustment. However, I am saying that the tying of the cost of living index to the pension is something that would be most desirable.
To deal with the amendment itself, I believe it is classed as a non-confidence motion. That is the only way I can see it at the moment. It is an amendment to the motion to go into committee of supply, and in my view it is put forward as a want of confidence amendment. I admit right away that I find myself in a difficult position, and I have no doubt in the world that it exactly what the hon. member for Timmins had in mind when he proposed the amendment, not only with respect to myself but a good many other people. Nevertheless, that is the situation; he has put me on the spot along with a good many other members.


Murdo William Martin: If I want to embarrass the government I do not have to go to that length.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I was merely suggesting that this was an effort to embarrass some hon. members. I feel that the old age pension question has not been satisfactorily settled yet. That is my view of the matter. I think the pension must be adjusted from time to time, and that the present rate of $55 must be reconsidered. The reason I am embarrassed is that I may have to vote against an amendment to increase the pension to $75 when such a move in other circumstances might be worthy of consideration. However, in my opinion the arbitrary setting of a figure of $75 with no previous consideration of the matter except what may be given today is not satisfactory. The matter has not been discussed previously this session. It was not brought up on the minister's estimates, and I believe that the amendment is hastily conceived.


Mr. Van Horne:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for York-Humber.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -I should like to say first of all-


Mr. Cardin:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member for Hichelieu-Vercheres raising a point of order?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you have given the floor to the hon. member for York-Humber. I think it has been apparent for some time now that the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska is having some considerable difficulty in catching your eye. I think the hon. member should be heard, and with all due respect to the hon. member for York-Humber I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron):
That, according to rule 29 of standing orders, the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska be now heard.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
Mr. Pallet!: With respect to the motion that has been moved-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Regier:: It is not debatable.


Mr. Pallell:: -the question has been put by Mr. Speaker, but I understand that a speakers' list has been prepared for the various parties.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understand that this motion is not debatable. Standing order 29 reads as follows:
When two or more members rise to speak, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who first rose in his place; but a motion may be made that any member who has risen "be now heard" or "do now speak", which motion shall be forthwith put without debate.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak on the motion-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, but this motion is not debatable. Is it the pleasure of the house of adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the motion will please say "Yea".


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say "Nay".


An hon. Member:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, as I was about to say a few minutes ago, before I was interrupted-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: You never even got started.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -I regret this incident, since it would never be my intention to interfere with the designs of the whip in any material way. However, you will recall that I did rise this morning, before the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and I did address the Chair. After lunch I was a bit uncertain about my position, so I wrote a note to Mr. Speaker, who told me I was right after the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). It was for this reason I got up just now and addressed the Chair. I do not believe we should cast any aspersions on the whip by saying he had any ulterior motive or desire to keep me from speaking this afternoon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I need not tell the hon. member that he is not in order now. He should speak to the amendment.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I listened, as I said, very attentively to the representative of the C.C.F. group who introduced this amendment, as well as to the hon. member for Essex East. I could see nothing in what they said, with one possible exception, that was not in strict conformity with the solemn promises we officially made during the 1957 and 1958 elections.
If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to a few remarks I made on January 16, 1956, when I first spoke in this house. I made a very definite and very lengthy statement at that time to the effect that pensions ought to be granted at 65 years of age and ought to be increased to $60 per month. This was in 1956. It must be remembered that at that time the pension was $40 per month. That was the first time I made a speech in the house, having only recently been elected. I came here at that time having very fresh in my mind the pleas of hundreds of thousands of senior citizens, not only in my riding but in all parts of Canada, to the effect that they simply could not get along on $40 per month. They cannot get along now on $55 per month, Mr. Speaker.
If I may be permitted, I should like to quote from page 175 of Hansard, volume 1, 1956. I said this:
Nothing stifles initiative and the joy of living so much as the realization that once you reach age 65 your services will no longer be in demand ...
The general tendency within our industries is to enforce compulsory retirement at age 65. This affects not only the health of those who have to retire, but also the entire economy of the country.
Then on the same page I said:
We should protect our citizens who, after a long life of hard work, are anxious to work in order to retain their health and happiness. We must afford them the opportunity of taking up another occupation, if their health is adequate, and if they are anxious to continue to work. I am not claiming that
Old Age Pensions
they should continue in the same line of work as the one in which they were engaged throughout their life
They should be encouraged and given an opportunity to become occupied in a line of work that would give them something useful to do and permit them to make a contribution to the economic welfare of Canada. This is the plight in which so many of our senior citizens find themselves on reaching the age of 65. Their services are no longer required. When I made these few remarks in 1956 I said this:
Where would the Liberal party be today had the Prime Minister been forced to retire at 65, along with the other members of his cabinet?
If what is true of government and what is true of industry were applied right across the country, then we would be confronted with a situation throughout this country in which people reaching the age of 65 would be told to go home, that their years of usefulness were over. In some cases, in an ever-increasing number of cases, they are given a pension to which they contributed during their years of employment.
However, Mr. Speaker, the point I wish to make is that this pension is not adequate, in the first place, and in the second place this is a trend that should be abated. It is a trend that should be discouraged by every possible means. People should be given the opportunity of continuing to make the contribution they feel capable of making throughout the useful years of their lives. The age of 65 should not be arbitrarily set as the retirement age. I know that the setting of that age goes back to the time of Bismark, who when they introduced social security in 1885 in Germany adopted the age of 65 as the age at which the pension should be paid. There was no trend at that time which indicated that should be the age at which people should retire.
Of course these people are forced to retire, and they are given a small pension. If these people, throughout their lives, have had the courage to save a few dollars, to own a house, acquire a little bit of real estate or place a few dollars in investments, they are denied a pension because of the means test. I said in 1956, as recorded on the same page of Hansard:
I cannot understand the thinking of the Liberal party leaders as regards the means test.
I cannot understand why we are not taking steps, and have not taken steps, to abolish the means test for a pension at age 65. Why punish a person because he has had the courage to save a few dollars? Why penalize a person because he has provided, to some extent, for his future? Why is it that

Old Age Pensions
you have to be poor to get the old age pension at 65, and be very careful to remain poor in order to keep it? If you go to work, as happens in ridings such as mine where summer employment is more readily available than winter employment and is of a less strenuous nature, then the next thing you know you get a letter saying that your pension has been eliminated, cut, cancelled or reduced, sometimes for a period of six months or more. This happens when a pensioner earns a little more than he is permitted to earn. In other words, these old age pensioners are forced to remain poor. They are prevented from improving their standard of living and they are penalized because of this means test.
I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that this is a good occasion indeed upon which to bring to the attention of this house the iniquitous results of this means test which affects so many of our people. If the pensions which people received from their former employers were sufficient to permit them to enjoy a decent life, then the situation might be different. However, in ridings such as mine there are no pensions from employers at age 65, in most cases. A man is forced to stop working at one job, but he is not given an opportunity to work anywhere else. Even our provincial governments and our federal government have fallen into the habit of putting people into that category. A man cannot even become a fish warden on the Restigouche river during the summer months if he is over 65 years of age. A man is penalized, therefore; he is caught in a vise. The pendulum has swung and it has swung in a way that has hurt our senior citizens.
I feel that although the second point is of importance, the means test was never designed to penalize a man or prevent him from improving his standard of living or from earning a few dollars that might permit him to live more decently. But if the means test is important, so is the attitude we in this group took throughout the years with regard to old age pensions. I can recall that in 1929 the Conservative party in New Brunswick had in its platform the implementation of old age pensions. The party spent four years in office and did not carry out that promise because they felt the government could not afford to do so. Of course they lost the election, or they did not lose it so much as they gave it away in the very same manner that the Flemming government just lost in New Brunswick; they gave the election away.
As our attitude has crystallized over the years we have been consistently in favour

not only of old age pensions but of increasing them to the point where people in their older years would be permitted to live decently. I can assure you that among the members of the old opposition-and we were in the opposition for a good many years-who were the most eloquent and most ardent advocates of better treatment for our senior citizens, who took an interest in their plight and who carried on such a vigorous struggle to make sure that they received the consideration that this government should have given them, was none other than the present Prime Minister of Canada. Let us not forget that fact.
But we came to the people in 1958, and there is no question in my mind about this fact. I know that I went to my riding and I read the promises. I repeated them, I spoke about them and probably I even signed them. I refer to the promises that the hon. member for Essex East recited this morning. There was no question in my mind then but that we had undertaken them officially. This was not a promise caught up by some candidate, as may have been the case in some instances. This was an official solemn obligation on the part of this government and this party to implement the same system of social security, over and above the present system, that existed in the United States. There was no doubt in my mind at that time that that was the official position of the party. I certainly made it one of the important things in the campaign I waged in my riding of Resti-gouche-Madawaska. There is no person in that riding now who is not keenly aware of the fact that during the past one and a half years we have more or less sidetracked that extremely important obligation that we accepted on behalf of this party toward the Canadian people.
As to this system of social security as it has existed in the United States, may I say this. I realize that in order to implement this system and replace the present one would result in injustice, would create havoc and would be detrimental to the interests of the people. But this was not a system to replace the one in existence. This was a system that was to be implemented in addition to and over and above the present system of old age pensions which were to be increased as they were increased.
I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that the hour is getting late. I feel that this system of survivor benefits, the same system as that which exists in the United States, must be implemented in Canada now. I contend that it should have been implemented previously, but I say that it must be implemented now. I realize that this system, being a contributory one, will

have more popular appeal in the highly industrialized areas of Canada and possibly not as much appeal and possibly not as much ability to contribute in areas such as mine where the population is to a great extent rural.
I understand that the only reason that program has not been implemented up to now is that the average wages in Canada are something like 30 per cent less than the average wages in the United States. But let us not forget this fact. The average wages in New Brunswick are 30 per cent less than the average wages in Canada as a whole. You can therefore realize the position in which our people find themselves. By and large our people are unable to contribute to the welfare of their fathers and mothers. They are unable to adequately supplement the pensions of $55 a month that are now being paid.
I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that until such time as we decide to take the bull by the horns and implement this system of social security as it exists in the United States, making allowances for areas such as mine where people do not earn enough money to contribute to it, we should give careful consideration to this motion. It is impossible to get along on $55 a month. I do not care where you come from in this country; that is the situation.
I remember that in the old days Mr. John Blackmore brought into the house a set of figures furnished by the department of statistics, which gave the minimum required by an old person or an elderly person to get along. Here are the figures which were given, more or less; there may be some little variance. It was found that a person could not get along on less than $30 a month for food. That is allowing only 33 cents a meal, which I understand is less than we allow for our prisoners. You had to expect to pay $20 a month for rent. That was only $5 a week, or less than a dollar a day. Those figures were supplied by the department of statistics. The person was expected to give at least $3 a month to the church. The amount of a $7 a month was allowed for clothes, $10 a month for recreation and $5 for transportation. As I add those figures up, they come to $75.
I feel that $75 a month is a realistic amount. I do not think this government will very soon carry out its obligation to put into effect the same or almost the same social security system as that which is in existence in the United States. I am not thinking about any election in the past and I am not thinking about any election to come. I am thinking of the old people of this country, the senior
Old Age Pensions
citizens, not only in my riding but throughout all of Canada. I say that the time has come to give this question the consideration it merits.
We increased the pension to $55 a month, and then we seemed to develop the feeling that we had taken the load off our shoulders and that we were not obliged to think about it again. Of course that increase was welcome. However, there are very few people in this country who will say that it was adequate.
Who are we trying to help, or who are we helping? In giving due consideration to and in doing justice toward the senior citizens of this country we are helping all the people of this country and all the citizens. We are helping our young men and women. We are helping the people of middle age. We are helping all our people to shoulder the burden of responsibility to their parents. Who in this house can oppose this motion? I say, Mr. Speaker, that this motion is long overdue and should be passed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this amendment moved by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) has given the house an opportunity to discuss one of the most important questions that could come before us, namely the question of old age pensions. It is unfortunate that throughout the course of this discussion it has not been possible for the minister of the government directly concerned with this matter, namely the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to be here. Perhaps he is on business of public importance elsewhere. I think it is also unfortunate that the Minister of Finance, who is equally concerned, has not found it possible to be in the house this afternoon during the discussion. I say this is an important question. Our position with regard to it has been put to the house by the hon. member for Essex East, who has himself done so much for social security in this country.
As a responsible official opposition we do not ignore the relationship between social security and financial and economic resources. We know that no government that is responsible in the economic as well as the political sense of the word can do everything. We know that developing social security schemes must be related to the resources of the nation because there is only one way in which these schemes can be financed, namely by us as citizens of the country. So we on this side do not ignore that aspect of the question and we never have as a party in the past.
Over the years, in this progress toward better social security in this country, when

Old Age Pensions
Liberal governments were in power the progress was always made in a way which rec-conciled essental social progress with fiscal and economic requirements. I noticed this morning when the hon. member for Timmins introduced this amendment that it referred to a specific sum, $75 a month. At one stage, although it was somewhat confusing, he indicated that he was not wedded to any particular amount, and that he thought perhaps $75 a month at this time and in present circumstances might be too high. He will correct me if I misquote him, but I do recall him saying that. The fact remains-


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, was the Leader of the Opposition referring to me?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I beg the hon. member's pardon; it was the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters). The fact remains, however, that we do have in this amendment the figure of $75 a month.
We also recognize, while keeping in mind economic and fiscal considerations, that there are social considerations which are equally important, indeed more important, than fiscal consideration. We know that pension schemes and pension levels and social security programs generally can never be fixed but that they have to be adjusted and changes made as conditions in the country change.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear to us, as I am sure it is clear to every hon. member of this house, that the claims of old age pensioners must be very high on the list of priorities when we are considering what more we can do in developing schemes for responsible social security and social progress.
The government itself has given certain definite and specific assurances in this field. We have also been told more than once by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) that when an assurance is given by the prime minister of this country, that assurance means something and will lie kept. The Prime Minister himself emphasized that the other day. In this particular field the assurances are specific. Some of them were mentioned this morning, and I will quote one given by the Prime Minister on April 25, 1957 when beginning the election campaign. As reported by the Canadian Press he said:
As for social security-pensions, veterans payments and the like-the increases announced in last month's federal budget were "meagre and niggardly". A Conservative government would set payments high enough to meet needs...
The concept of pensions then, as expressed by the present Prime Minister, was the concept of need. The pensions would be set high enough, he said, to meet needs. He did not end there. Having established what the need

was for pensions, and I admit that was done shortly after the government took office, and having established it at the figure of $55 a month, the Prime Minister further said on April 25, 1957:
A Conservative government would set payments high enough to meet needs and subsequent adjustments to living costs and increases in national productivity.
So first of all they were going to establish what the need was, and they did establish it at $55. Subsequently they would make adjustments to living costs and increases in national productivity. That was in 1957, and there have been increases in living costs and in national productivity since that time. That was surely a specific, definite assurance, and presumably it was meant to be kept. But it has not been kept.
Mr. Speaker, this motion is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to indicate whether he wishes to take advantage of this situation in order to reaffirm this assurance which he gave in 1957.
He gave another assurance in 1958 which has already been referred to. When opening the campaign he pledged, on February 12, 1958:
We will bring about in Canada a sound and effective contributory social security plan-
And I emphasized these words.
-over and above that which already exists.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these are the three assurances which the Prime Minister of this country gave and by which he is bound. First of all, that he would establish the old age pension scheme on the basis of need; second, that having established the need he would adjust pensions to take care of the increase in the cost of living and the growth of national productivity; and third, that he would add to these schemes a contributory scheme over and above what has been provided in the way of universal old age pensions. As the hon. member for Essex East said, he made great play with this latter assurance. A commission was set up to tell us how it could be done, and the report of the commission has been in the hands of the government for two years and is still being considered.
Mr. Speaker, I have said that we are unable to accept the amendment, which relates the increase to a specific amount, $75 a month, without condition, without reservation, without qualification. I propose to move an amendment to the amendment which will establish the position of our own party in regard to this and related matters on a basis -and I emphasize this-which has already been laid down in our party platform. This amendment embodies the assurances which

we as a party have already given and by which we will stand, and which in due course we will implement.
This amendment to the amendment reads as follows. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill):
That the amendment be amended by striking out all the words after the word "provide" and the substitution therefor of the following words:
"in co-operation with the provinces, for increases in the old age pensions to meet special hardships endured by the recipients of old age security and old age assistance; to extend old age assistance to unmarried women and widows at 60 years of age; for the vesting of benefits in industrial pensions plans; and for a national contributory pension scheme, co-ordinated with existing provisions for retirement and old age security based on federal government contributions, as well as on contributions of employees, employers, and self-employed."
The original amendment as amended would then read:
That in the opinion of this house the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation to provide, in co-operation with the provinces, for increases in the old age pensions to meet special hardships endured by the recipients of old age security and old age assistance; to extend old age assistance to unmarried women and widows at 60 years of age; for the vesting of benefits in industrial pensions plans; and for a national contributory pension scheme, co-ordinated with existing provisions for retirement and old age security based on federal government contributions, as well as on contributions of employees, employers, and self-employed.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I put the amendment before the house has any hon. member any question to raise about its relevance? As the amendment is a subamendment to an earlier amendment on which I made some reservations to give a further opportunity for consideration I might just as well deal with the first amendment now and say that it appears to me not to be blocked by any prior decision of the house and to be in order. Unless any hon. member has anything to say about the relevance of the subamendment I shall now read it.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), seconded by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill):
That the amendment be amended by striking out all the words after the word "provide" and the substitution therefor of the following words: "in co-operation with the provinces, for increases in the old age pensions to meet special hardships endured by the recipients of old age security and old age assistance; to extend old age assistance to unmarried women and widows at 60 years of age; for the vesting of benefits in industrial pensions plans; and for a national contributory pension scheme, co-ordinated with existing provisions for retirement and old age security based on federal government contributions, as well as on contributions of employees, employers, and self-employed."
Old Age Pensions


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if with the permission of the house I might raise a point of order which Your Honour may not wish to settle at this time and that is with respect to the time at which the vote would be taken to determine the motions before the house in a situation which, I think, under the new rules, is somewhat unprecedented.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member can appreciate that I am not called upon to settle that question at this time. There is nothing to prevent the continuation of the debate at the present moment.


Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that everyone in the House of Commons would like to see the old age pension and other pensions increased. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and gathered that they are wholeheartedly in support of increased pensions. I find it difficult, however, to reconcile their words of today with their actions of the past because when they were in a position to do these things they simply did not do them.
We have heard a lot about the great social measures that the previous government brought in. I should like to put on the record some of the things the Conservative government has done in the past three years because I believe that no government in Canada has ever laid as great emphasis on human needs as this government has. I feel sure that if the Conservative party had not been elected in 1957 our older citizens would still be receiving a pension of $46 a month. It was not until the Conservatives formed the government that the pension was raised to $55 a month. It was not until the Conservatives formed the government that an injustice was removed which made it necessary that people should have lived in Canada for 20 years before they were eligible for any pension. The domicile period was reduced to 10 years by the Conservative government. It was not until the Conservatives formed the government that another injustice was wiped out through this government abolishing the regulation which provided that old age pensioners had to live in Canada in order to be eligible for the pension. These are just a few of the measures we have introduced to date, a few of the step by step improvements that this government has brought about in our social measures.


Murdo William Martin: It is time for another.


Margaret Aitken: We are getting there. In my constituency of York-Humber there are

Old Age Pensions
hundreds of old age pensioners. I know how much they appreciate these improvements. I know they would appreciate receiving $75 a month, too, and I sincerely hope we can raise the old age pension in the not too distant future.
Canadians are responsible people, Mr. Speaker. They know that we cannot take on welfare measures beyond our means. I believe there are approximately 875,000 old age pensioners in Canada today and this number is increasing all the time as longevity increases. The socialists who have been rejected again and again by the Canadian people now pull out of their hat the figure of $75 a month. Why $75 a month? I have here a brief from the national old age pensioners' federation and they suggest $85 a month payable without a means test to all citizens on reaching age 65. Why not $85? Or better still, why not a nice round figure like $100 a month? It is so easy for the socialists to introduce these irresponsible amendments knowing that they will never have to meet the problem of the heavy expenditures involved. The socialists talk about free hospitalization, free medical care, free pensions, free pie in the sky. Of course, it is downright dishonest on their part to make these irrational statements because nothing is free. Somebody has to pay for all these things and it is not governments that pay for them. Governments do not have money and so it is the taxpayers who pay for them.
From the province of Saskatchewan we have heard a lot about free medical care. The government of Saskatchewan certainly has no money to provide free medical care except what they take from the unfortunate taxpayers. It is the duty of responsible governments to try and assess how far Canada can go in its social welfare. I believe that responsible governments must gear social welfare to our economic capacity.
The question has come up today, do we want a system such as the United States has or do we want a combination of our system and of the United States personal contributory system? It took the United States 22 years to build up a fund that pays a minimum of $33 a month. If we scrap our system, how long would it take before we could build up a sound fund that would pay $55 a month? It seems to me that our $55 a month for everyone is much fairer than the United States system. Under our system you cannot get higher pensions nor can you get lower pensions. Theirs is a system whereby the rich get richer, that is higher pensions, and the poor get poorer, or lower pensions, which are based on the amount of the contribution

through the productive years. I think our system under which everybody gets the same is the best one.
Then, the dream of having our system plus the contributory system I think is a good one. I hope in time that we have it, but I am looking into the distant future because it will take many years to build up a sound contributory fund; and looking into the near future I also hope that we can raise the old age pension in a responsible and sound way.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker I rise to express my opposition to the subamendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). As I read his subamendment he wants to eliminate a definite expression of opinion on the part of the house that we believe the government ought to give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation to provide for an increase to $75 a month in old age pensions. He has replaced that with the wish that the house might express its opinion in favour of a long list of platitudes. He does not want the house to express an opinion that our senior citizens ought to receive a minimum of at least $75 a month. I did not hear him use the words but I imagine he regards our proposal as irresponsible. I am advised that the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) indicated that our proposal might be irresponsible, but we have made an estimate of what the cost might be, and the gross expense of implementing our amendment and enabling all pensioners to receive $75 a month instead of $55 a month that they now get would mean an added burden to the treasury of a little bit more than $200 million a year. When we recall that this year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) is paying $249,728,162 more in interest on the public debt than was paid in the financial year ended March 31, 1957; when we consider that added increase in interest payments made by the federal government on its obligations, I think that a gross expenditure of a little more than $200 million in order to give reasonable equity to our senior citizens is not beyond the capacity of our nation to bear.
I hold in my hand the Bible which I obtained from the table and I note that in Exodus, chapter 20, verse 12, it says:
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God glveth thee.
I feel that if we as a society deny to our fathers and mothers a standard of living that is equal to ours we are not obeying the commandment that was given to mankind many long years ago. I see no reason why in our society those who are willing to work, but

because of factors beyond their control are unable to work, ought not to share and to have the same standard of living as the members of our society who are able to earn a regular monthly wage. I believe that the motion moved by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) ought not to be denied passage by the house, and that we ought to reject this attempt on the part of the Liberal party to water down the amendment with platitudes, many of which may be acceptable but which, however, in effect would express the opinion that we ought not to commit ourselves to a minimum income of $75 a month for our elderly citizens.
I am rather amazed at the words used in the subamendment submitted by the Leader of the Opposition. To begin with, he used the words "in co-operation with the provinces". I would have hoped that he would explain that approach a little more clearly than he did. Exactly what does he mean, because we now have an old age pension that is paid to all Canadians as Canadians. The pension that we are now paying has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. Why the Leader of the Opposition wants to re-introduce the co-operation of the other levels of government in this regard I do not understand except, and in this I relate it to what immediately follows, that he wishes to have increases in the old age pension only to meet special hardships. Is the Liberal party now attempting to re-introduce the means test into the old age pension? The only interpretation I can place on this wording is that the Liberals are perfectly willing to pay $55 a month to each and every Canadian who has reached the ripe old age of 70. However, they are unwilling to grant any more than $55 unless the proposed recipient can plead a special hardship.
Then in the subamendment offered by the Leader of the Opposition there is an indication that the increase ought to be granted only if-and I read this into it-a contribution is made by the provincial authorities. This is a negation of the intent of our amendment to the motion to go into committee of supply. Our amendment means that the federal authorities should, in the same way that they now assume the obligation to pay $55 a month, assume the obligation to pay not $55 but $75 a month to every eligible Canadian.
I had reference to platitudes before and in that regard I should like to consider the amendment to the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. He refers to extending old age assistance to unmarried women and widows at 60 years of age. We have no fault to find with that. He also refers to
Old Age Pensions
the vesting of benefits in industrial pension plans. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition has at long last heard of the numerous complaints of unions with regard to the vesting of industrial pension plans and has thrown in that point so as not to overlook it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It has been in our program for two years.


Erhart Regier: He also refers to a national contributory pension scheme. I have always understood that all Canadians who pay income tax are making a contribution to old age pensions and that we already have a contributory basis. For the Leader of the Opposition to call now for a contributory pension scheme without further elaboration seems rather meaningless because in our view we now have such a scheme. In the amendment to the amendment he has added the words, "co-ordinated with existing provisions for retirement and old age security based on federal government contributions, as well as on contributions of employees, employers and self-employed". If the Leader of the Opposition means that he is advocating a portable pension plan, naturally we are all in agreement. However, I should like to ask him why he does not ask for a portable pension plan in his amendment. Why does he have to use all these words which merely confuse the issue?
We believe that the Canadian economy has the ability to pay the increase of $200 million required to implement our plan. Let us never forget that this would not be the net cost to the country because much of this money would be returned to the Minister of Finance by way of income tax, sales tax and all kinds of other levies. I would risk a guess that at least $80 million of the $200 million odd required to implement our plan would be returned to various levels of government in one way or another. Therefore the net cost to government would be only slightly in excess of $100 million.
Mention was made that our amendment has to be related to the resources of the nation. In our opinion the resources of the nation are adequate and the resources of any nation should always be adequate to ensure a standard of living to fathers and mothers at least equal to our own. In my view the amendment moved by the hon. member for Timmins represents one effort to restore a little equity to the pioneers of our nation.
Much has been made of the remarks of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). Members of the Liberal party seem to think that he indicated that $75 might be too high.

Old Age Pensions
I believe that they have completely misinterpreted and misunderstood the hon. member for Timiskaming. All he was arguing was that the income of Canada's senior citizens should be tied to the cost of living and that when the cost of living rises their income should also rise. It may well be that if the cost of living declines their income should decline as well. I do not think any of Canada's elder citizens would find fault with that argument. However, the Liberals have attempted to misinterpret the hon. member's remarks as indicating that there may be one member in our group who is of the opinion that in this day and age $75 a month may be unduly high.
The Liberals would like to indicate their support for a substantial increase. All I will do is refer readers of Hansard to the Liberal interpretation of what a substantial increase means. In their view an increase from $40 to $46 a month represents a substantial increase. The Liberals are making an effort to get themselves off the hook. They do not want to commit themselves to a specific figure or to be realistic. As the Liberals have always done, they want to hand out charity to our elder Canadians under the pressure of elections. They do not want to grant equity. We in this group demand that those who have founded and been responsible for the building of our nation be granted equitable treatment and our proposal for the payment of $75 a month is only one means of obtaining equity for them.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


William Moore Benidickson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in my recollection this is perhaps the first time, after the house has exhausted the six normal two-day supply motions, that there has been an amendment on the motion to go into supply since the new rules came into effect in 1955. I am wondering whether this motion has priority over the normal procedure of setting aside the hour from five to six p.m. on Tuesdays and Fridays for the consideration of private and public bills.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will refer to standing order 15, page 9, he will find that subsection 3 (c) reads in part as follows:
If a debate on a motion "that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair" for the house to go into committee of supply be in progress at five o'clock p.m. on any Tuesday, the consideration of private and public bills shall not be entered upon in that sitting unless the said debate be concluded before six o'clock p.m.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I was attending the bill of rights committee when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) moved the amendment to the

amendment. I understand he indicated at that time that the official opposition would oppose the amendment moved by the C.C.F. party.
I merely wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that I very much regret the position that has been taken by the Liberal party. We gave consideration, in drafting our amendment, to making it rather broad and including many things within it. However, I feel, from the standpoint of the opposition, it is much more effective to move a simple, concise amendment that leaves no room for argument as to where the party moving it stands. We think our amendment is in this category. It calls for a very simple act by the government, namely considering an increase in the old age pension of $20 per month. I think that in view of the cost of living and in view of the production of which Canada is capable, this is a reasonable proposition. Certainly the additional call on our resources that would flow from an increase of $20 a month would not be impossible to meet because all across the country today we have widespread unemployment.
The Liberal party complains about unemployment. They ask the government to act on unemployment. I submit that one of the best actions the government could take to help relieve the unemployment situation would be to put some very badly needed purchasing power into the hands of people receiving old age pensions. This, in turn, would increase employment in our country. In 1957 the Liberals increased the old age pension by $6 per month. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson)-I do not want to misquote him-said that if we had asked for a pension of $65 a month they would have given favourable consideration to that proposition. I feel that the Liberal party, more than any other party in Canada, should know the results that flow from recognizing the principle that an increase is necessary, and bringing in an inadequate increase.
In 1957, before that election, no one would argue that the old people of this country did not need an increase in their pension. However, when the Liberal party brought in an increase amounting to a miserable $6, an amount which, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) pointed out was just 20 cents a day, a couple of cups of coffee a day, they did something which, more than any other single thing, assured that after the election they would transfer from the right of the Speaker to the left of the Speaker.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Why did the
C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan take away the $6.


Hazen Robert Argue: They never took anything away. I would ask my friend, when he-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: They have
already taken the $9 that we gave.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is nice to see the two old parties in the same boat. The minister is attempting to assist the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) who, undoubtedly, is greatly in need of assistance at this time. The effect of the $6 increase on the Liberal party has been continuing ever since the 1957 election. It contributed in a very material way to the defeat of the government of that day. A good friend of mine, and a very good friend of the hon. member for Essex East, the Hon. Walter Harris, received the blame for what was undoubtedly a decision of the whole government. It was so much an albatross around the neck of Mr. Harris that he found the greatest difficulty in placing himself before the Ontario Liberal convention for leadership of the Ontario Liberal party. His own people branded him as "Six-Buck-Waiter", and this stuck to him so that he was not able to garner the amount of support he needed.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the next year with the change of government there was an increase in the old age pension of $9 per month. This meant that within that short period of time the old age pension had been increased from $40 per month to $55 per month. The amount of increase for which the C.C.F. is asking today is very much of the same proportions. We say that, having had now for the last two years a basic pension of $55 per month, we should make a great step forward and provide an increase of $20 per month. What the Liberal party has done today has been to make it more difficult for the elderly people of this country to get the amount of increase that we say they need, an increase of $20 per month. The Liberal subamendment would strike out all the words in the amendment after the word "provide", which deletes the figure of $75 per month, and would substitute therefor the words:
*-In co-operation with the provinces, for increases in the old age pensions to meet special hardships endured by the recipients of old age security and old age assistance;-[DOT]
This, Mr. Speaker, amounts to nothing more than bringing back the means test by a backdoor method to the old age security pensioners. We felt that a step forward had been taken by removing the means test so that every Canadian, no matter what his or her status, on reaching the age of 70 would be entitled to a pension of a certain amount. The Liberal subamendment would stigmatize the people of this country who are now in receipt of old age security and who are in a special position of hardship. I feel that would be a retrograde step and one that parliament should not endorse at this time.
Old Age Pensions
Then, of course, the Liberals have played it exceedingly cautious. They have said, "in co-operation with the provinces". Now, are they going to give the 10 provinces the right to veto the increase in pension they claim they wish by this motion? It goes on to say:
-to extend old age assistance to unmarried women and widows at 60 years of age;-
I take it that this is also under the general umbrella or general qualification of "in cooperation with the provinces". Then, it goes on to say:
-for the vesting of benefits in industrial pensions plans;-
Is this to be in co-operation with the provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Obviously, if you read it, it is clear.


Hazen Robert Argue: Just what does it mean? Is it a national contributory scheme? Is it a scheme in co-operation with the provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


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


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes; there is a well known rule, Mr. Speaker, that two members cannot be speaking at the same time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought you were asking me a question.


Hazen Robert Argue: My understanding of the rule is that this amendment which has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition, undesirable as it is, nevertheless has the desirable effect of making it possible for the hon. member for Essex East to rise in his place and speak again, so we will undoubtedly be very pleased to hear from him, after I sit down, as to what his leader really meant when he moved this because it is not clear to us. I should like to hear from the two leaders of that party just exactly how they stand on this question. My colleague behind me says, who is the leader? We know who the leader is, but sometimes the antics of the hon. member for Essex East cause us to wonder. Then, the subamendment goes on:
-and for a national contributory pension scheme, co-ordinated with existing provisions for retirement and old age security based on federal government contributions, as well as on contributions of employees, employers, and self-employed.
They have placed in the subamendment many things that we have advocated for many years and we would be prepared to support as a definite proposition. However, we are not prepared to support this gobbledy-gook type amendment which removes the

Old Age Pensions
effect of our own amendment which was clear and precise. It was to help the old age pensioners of this country. We said the old people of this country need help, but the Liberal party says, do not help them now; let us go on this long, tortuous course and try to get the co-operation of the provinces to do all manner of things as listed in this subamendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend knows that that is not the case.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Liberal party, of course, will answer to the country and to the old people as to why they removed the provision for a very clear and necessary increase in the old age pension. We think we were justified in moving our amendment in simple terms. We think the subamendment is a mistake and in this context should be defeated. We think the Liberal party has made a mistake in deciding to oppose our own amendment and at this late hour I would ask the hon. member for Essex East to have a hurried caucus with other members of his party so that they may not make the tragic mistake of voting against a motion designed to increase the old age pension.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I think without question the record of this government in the security field has been the best of any government since confederation. I think all hon. members of the house will agree with that statement. I think that all you have to do is to look at the record. The government has increased the old age pension. In 1956-57 the amount was $379 million; in 1959 we paid out $578 million or $200 million of an increase over the previous government.


Murdo William Martin: In old age security alone?


Philip Bernard Rynard: In pensions to our senior citizens who qualify.


Murdo William Martin: No.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Oh, yes. In the field of social security I want to refer to this point. We have given over $100 million more for mothers' and children's allowances across Canada, making a total in those two fields alone, going into the homes of Canada where it was needed, of over $300 million.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not in mothers' allowances.


Philip Bernard Rynard: In my capacity as a physician I have seen the great good that has been done by this increase since this present government has come into power. It is an interesting fact to note that here is conversion. I remember so well that the previous government explained that $46 was all the 
economy of the state would stand. I have also read some articles from the province of Saskatchewan and I note that Dr. James Forrester made the statement out there in Saskatoon in an address a couple of months ago that it is always possible for welfare costs to exceed the value of the gross national product, which would end in a breakdown of all our social security measures. I think those are fundamentals that we must keep in mind in any field of taxation.
I am sure there is no one in this house who for one minute would deny the old people all that they have coming to them in their declining years for their comfort and their security. But I am also equally sure that there are other fields in which we need expansion just as badly as we need this increase. I refer particularly to those cases of people in the sixties and seventies who are obliged to go to hospitals and are placed in general hospital wings when they would be better placed in wings particularly devised for the treatment and the benefit of those people who are in the chronically ill class.
Then I also think of the person who is not acutely ill or is not sick enough to be in hospital, or even in a geriatric wing of that hospital, but who needs invalid care, and we have done very little about this matter in this country. There have been a few pilot schemes but beyond that we have done very little. I think there is a great and growing need for this and it must be more urgently considered by all levels of government. In our older age groups sickness increases by leaps and bounds. I have not heard anyone mention that in this house this afternoon except the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). Yes, I am going to give the hon. member credit. He mentioned it but he said no medical care was provided. Medical care is provided where the old age recipient is unable to pay and these people get excellent care. Not only is that the case, but this government brought in hospitalization whereby these people have their hospitalization taken care of. Yes, that is true and we brought in hospitalization and; we also provided them with drugs so that there is no old age pensioner today, who is entitled to it by lack of means, who cannot get the best treatment that is possible in this dominion of Canada. Those are things this government has done. However, there are other things that need to be done.
There are those people who, for reasons of infirmity, cannot look after themselves. There is a great and crying need across this nation for the building of homes in which these people can be looked after and in which our schemes of hospitalization would pay for them and look after them.


Harold Edward Winch: Why have you not done it?



Philip Bernard Rynard: My friend the hon. member for Vancouver East says "Why have you not done it?" May I say that we are well on the road. We have increased these two social security measures by over $300 million. I would say that is well on the road. We are advancing all these things. But I want to remind him that on many occasions he has not risen in support of the people that are increasing by leaps and bounds over the age of 65 years, people that are thrown out of industry, some of them able to work and some of them not able to work. What provision is made for those people that are able to work?


Harold Edward Winch: Will the hon. member name one in that category on whose behalf I have not spoken in this house? Will he name one? I should like to know.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to discuss the record of the hon. member. I want to carry on with the speech I am making.


Harold Edward Winch: I am not a past member; I am a present member.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, sometimes the hon. member is in the past. I want to dwell on the fact that a great many of these people have reached the age of 65. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) mentioned widows. Some of those widows are in better circumstances quite often than are men. You will find them quite often welcomed into the home. They fit more easily into the home many times than do men. Often there are positions open for them that are not often open to men. It is true that they form the largest number. There are many more old age pensioners among the women than there are among the men. However, somehow or another the women fit into their communities better and it seems easier for them to get along than it is for the old men.
I should like to see some special attention in the future paid to this particular facet. I want to say again and reiterate that none of us for a minute would deny the old people of this country the things that are coming to them, the people that gave us the country we enjoy today.
Mr. V/. G. Dinsdale (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I think I can safely say that I have been around the house long enough to recognize what is involved in the amendment we have before us here this afternoon. As I listened to the speeches that have been made on this very important subject, the sentiments
Old Age Pensions
all pull in the direction of the senior citizens of Canada. Unfortunately, however, in speaking to the amendments to the motion to go into supply we are somewhat hamstrung by the very nature of the amendments themselves.
A member supporting this government- and several of the speakers have reviewed the social welfare progress and anticipated program of the government-confronted with these resolutions is forced to come to the conclusion that they are nothing more nor less than a want of confidence motion in this government. Having said that I think we are rather disappointed that this important subject, the situation of our senior citizens at the present time, has to be brought into focus by the amendments before the house.
The senior citizens are one of the most important segments of the population today. They have been growing in numbers in recent years. For example, in 1925 the citizens of 70 years and over in Canada represented just 5.19 per cent of the population. In 1935 that percentage had increased to 6.01 per cent, or in population figures, to 392,000. Moving forward another decade to 1945, the percentage was 6.66 and the population in figures 509,000. Then coming up to the next decade, 1955, the figure was 753,100 persons, or a population percentage of 7.98. So it can be anticipated that when we have the statistics in for the next decade there will be a similar increase in the number of citizens over the age level of 70 years constituting our population.
Because of this trend it is important that from time to time we review their position in modern society, particularly when we have social change taking place at the present rapid pace. It is unfortunate that in this House of Commons we are forced to take a political approach to these matters rather than discussing these important social welfare issues from the broad perspective of the actual social need. In speaking to the C.C.F. amendment we are faced again with the auction type of approach to the needs of our senior citizens, bidding upwards in terms of monetary compensation for the support of this growing segment of our population. This has been all too frequently the only approach to resolving the problem, the technique of buying people's votes with their own money.
Then again, in the discussion which has taken place already we have heard spokesmen from various parties boasting of the achievements of their own party in the field of social welfare services. If we were to examine the record in Canada and compare it with progress in other western countries I think we would all be forced to the conclusion that Canada was somewhat slow in

Old Age Pensions
responding to the demands of changing society from the standpoint of social welfare services.
The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) made the claim that his party has been responsible for every social welfare measure that is on the statute books of Canada today. I am not going to debate that point with him, but I am sure he will agree with me that all parties in every western country have responded to the demands of the changing social situation, either more slowly or more quickly, by moving toward what is known as the social welfare state. Canada has responded more slowly because we are a new country and a frontier society where the opportunities were great and where industrialization and urbanization proceeded at a slower pace.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would not agree we were slower.


Mr. Dinsdale:: But in response to the point the hon. member for Essex East made, let us just review the record for the moment, sticking exclusively to the approach of resolving the social problem amongst our senior citizens. Canada's first approach to the problem came around the year 1909, as I recall, and that was an annuities program designed to encourage senior citizens to make their own financial preparations for their declining years. There was no change in that program other than on the provincial level until the 1920's.
In response to the prodding of the provincial governments, in 1924, I believe it was, a committee was set up to review the whole problem. That committee reported to the house and in 1926 the House of Commons passed a bill providing for old age pensions in co-operation with the provinces. That bill was rejected by the other place and it had to come back before the house, and in 1927 it received the unanimous approval of both houses. So it will be seen that there was a rather hesitant approach to these difficulties.
It remained for the onset of the depression for Canada really to come to grips with the new trends in the new society and also to come to grips with the impact of the depression. I think the hon. member will recall, because he is a student in these matters, that it remained for a Conservative administration during the early part of the decade of the thirties really to move forward rapidly toward the social challenge of the problems arising from the new industrial society and also from the direct impact of the depression itself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon.
member permit a question?
[Mr. Dinsdale.!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would he not agree that the legislation introduced between 1930 and 1935 was held to be ultra vires of this parliament, and before the question was referred to the courts it was argued by the Liberal opposition at that time that that would be the legal outcome?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: May I ask the hon. member a question. Who referred those social measures to the courts?


Paul Joseph James Martin: They were referred by the Liberal administration. These matters were outside federal competence, and it was clear that they were political devices employed by the government of the day.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The matter raised by the hon. member for Essex East merely serves to underline the point I am making, that we have been very reluctant and slow to meet these problems; and in this specific case the Liberal administration tried to upset the apple cart by referring these matters to the supreme court to determine their legality.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We brought in measures which were within our constitutional competence.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I believe the grounds were that the depression was no emergency.
Another interesting piece of history comes to my mind as I discuss this subject. I believe it was 1932 when the Liberal opposition of that day opposed rather strenuously the principle of assistance to the provincial governments, and that was one of the rare occasions when closure was adopted by the government in order to make it possible to provide assistance to the provincial governments to meet the challenge of the depression.
I mention these things merely to point out that down through the years the record of all parties in the house is not completely outside the pale of criticism. I do not think my friend the hon. member for Essex East wants to take undue credit for these matters. All governments in every western nation have had to respond to social realities, otherwise they would not remain in office. I make the point again that Canada's response has been somewhat slower because of the nature of our frontier society.
I could have dealt with this point at greater length but I do not think it needs any further discussion. I could have gone on to say that Liberal philosophy basically has been opposed to the exercise of the power of the state to ameliorate the social lot of citizens because it is contrary to the fundamental principle

of Liberalism and the maximum freedom of the individual but that would be getting us into a philosophical discussion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mill and Bentham as opposed to Mackenzie King and Franklin Roosevelt.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am sure that my hon. friend would agree that it is only as the Liberals have adopted the Conservative philosophy which believes in exercising the power of the state to assist less privileged groups in our society that they have been able to reconcile their fundamental philosophical position with their practical position.
Coming now to the specific matter before the house I do not think that by moving the financial award to our senior citizens either up or down on the scale is going to relieve the problem that confronts us as an urban and industrial society. The number of senior citizens has grown as I have indicated. Our population of senior citizens is more than three times what it was, let us say, three decades ago. There has been almost a doubling of their numbers with each decade. If we are going to meet this challenge we have to move forward on a much broader front than in merely providing financial payments. Financial payments are only a small aspect of the whole problem of meeting social needs.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) in his interesting remarks dealt with this subject briefly. The hon. gentleman quoted scripture. He went back to old testament times and the ten commandments and referred to the basic principle of society which must be observed if society is to continue and to thrive on a healthy basis: honour thy father and thy mother. I think the hon. gentleman would be the first to agree with me that that injunction was not directed to the state but was rather directed to the family which is after all the basic unit of society.
As long as our families remain strong and healthy and as long as they are performing their proper functions that have been determined by the social process then we can be sure that society, government and all other aspects of our social life will remain sound and healthy. I think that injunction, "honour thy father and thy mother," is an indication that families in urban society find it very difficult to carry out the spirit of this important part of the decalogue because as a concomitant of the rapid social change that has been taking place we have had the breakdown of primary groups in our society. The family has tended to become disorganized
79951-0-411
Oid Age Pensions
as is indicated by statistics of juvenile delinquency and statistics of neglect of the senior members of the family.
In addition to a break-down in the family, neighbourhood groups have tended to lose their identity. We find that one of the big problems of our senior citizens in recent times has been that of loneliness and a feeling of neglect. These things have come about as a result of the tendency of a complex civilization to push them off on the fringe of things and as a result of the break-down of neighbourhoods and community life. This has all resulted in the neglect of our senior citizens. We are not going to resolve this problem simply by an increased financial payment.
We can talk about social standards being maintained by financial payment but there are many of our senior citizens who have a substantial income, who are people of independent means, and although they have an adequate standard of living in monetary terms they do not have the standard of living which is necessary if they are going to feel they are occupying a useful place in our society.
I have long been interested in this problem. My interest emerged out of a study in which I was able to participate at the University of Chicago away back in 1948. This university has been a pioneer in the field of social sciences. At that time, immediately following world war II, in the United States as in Canada the problems of senior citizens which had been pushed aside because of the emergency of the war were being brought into sharp focus. The university conducted a major study of the problem in the great city of Chicago. I took part in that study as a humble interviewer going from door to door talking to senior citizens. I still have some of the documents we gathered at that time.
In assisting in the study I was impressed by the fact that in almost every case their problem was not a financial one but was a problem of feeling displaced in the world of modern times. It was a problem of wanting to work and of having no opportunity for employment in our industrial economy. It was a problem of health, elderly persons shut away in one room in tenement areas, cut off from their families, friends and neighbours, in ill health and without the wherewithal and without being provided by society with the facilities for relieving these difficulties. The case histories one after the other referred to this problem. They did not refer to the financial problem but rather to the problem of the loneliness and social displacement that was their lot.

Old Age Pensions
If we are going to adequately discuss this subject we cannot do so in terms of the amendments that are before the house at the present time. This is one of the basic social problems of our time. It has to be studied from the background of a broad knowledge of the difficulties and certainly we have not had an opportunity to gather that information in the short notice that has been given since the amendment was put before the house today.
I can only conclude by saying that in returning to this business of auction bidding in approaching our social welfare problems we are continuing the tendency to resolve fundamental social difficulties by political and partisan manipulation rather than by getting to the root of the matter.
Since the Conservative government took office I think we have seen a more encouraging attempt to adopt the broader approach. When the Clark commission was announced to investigate the field of old age security I thought that was a move in the right direction. The hon. members who have read the Clark report will agree with me, I think, that it contains excellent background information that will assist the federal government as well as the other levels of government, the provincial and municipal, because they have important roles to play in this whole area of social welfare, to broaden out the existing schemes in order to cope adequately with the problems that have been emphasized already in this discussion.
The attempts to deal with the broader social needs of our senior citizens are being met largely by voluntary organizations, and I think that is the way it should be. Certainly, in a free society government cannot go into a community and organize the necessary social groups in order to restore a sense of belonging to our older citizens. This is being done by second mile clubs, by twilight clubs and by all kinds of community organizations which are restoring our senior citizens to their rightful places in the social scheme of things. And then, too, provincial governments have reached out to accept the challenge in a more realistic way.
Since I come from the province of Manitoba I was encouraged just last year when the provincial government there moved forward with a very progressive piece of legislation designed to deal comprehensively with the social problems of our senior citizens. They call it the Manitoba social allowances act. A fundamental purpose of this act is to meet the financial gap in each individual case of need. Instead of a means test being applied to the particular case of need of a senior citizen, a needs test has been applied. It means, Mr. Speaker, that the government of Manitoba

is going to make sure that no senior citizen finds himself or herself in need from the standpoint of the basic necessities and services. This includes housing, food, adequate hospital and medical care. Complete medical and surgical care, including dentures, spectacles, hearing aids; all the other needs of the older members of our society are going to be met by this new provincial approach to the problem.
Before we are asked precipitously to authorize an across the board increase at this time I think the responsibilities of other areas, even down to the municipal level of government, where again there is some welfare responsibility, should be taken into consideration. Certainly this house would have all that information at its disposal.
As I understand it, the chief argument in the present debate has been that there must be an increase in payment to our senior citizens because of the continuing rise in the cost of living. It is quite true that Canada has been, as have all the economies of the west, passing through a continuing inflationary spiral, again we must keep the problem in its proper perspective and focus because the period of rapid inflation was between the years 1939 and 1951. In fact, I read a book not so long ago entitled "The Great Inflation 1939 to 1951". During that period the price index base of 100 in 1939 soared upward to somewhere in the 190's, and then it was restabilized in 1949 at an index of 100. Since that time, as some hon. members in the house have pointed out, we have reached a new index of 127 plus a few points. Since the restabilization of our price index we have not seen the rapid spiral that we had during the years of the war and immediately following. Actually since 1957, the upward movement of prices has been relatively slow indeed. Therefore, even when we look at this amendment from the standpoint of the increase in the cost of living it requires very careful thought on the part of hon. members.
In conclusion, may I say I think that in spite of the slow start to which I referred in Canada's approach to this social problem, along with all the other social problems with which we have been confronted during this century, in recent years we have shown a much greater willingness to meet the challenge of the situation from a non-partisan approach point of view. We have been willing to look at the actual social circumstances and adopt our policy to the social needs.
Unfortunately, in the early days our whole social welfare program tended to become somewhat of a jerry-built structure. We would pass a bill here to bolster up this sagging section of society, and then we would place

another bill on the statute books there to deal with another aspect, and most of those solutions were, as I have indicated, financial payments designed to encourage the people of Canada to vote for a particular political party because it gave us so and so. How many times have I heard that phrase on the hustings: Vote for us because we gave you such and such a piece of social legislation. As the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) expressed it so explicitly, governments give nothing other than that which they take from the taxpayers of Canada.
In a modern society it is the responsibility of governments not only to give financial help but to consider all the issues. With the resources for research, with the resources for investigation, with the responsibility that governments have in the modern world for providing an adequate program to meet the social needs of an urban and industrial society, it is the responsibility of the government to implement broad policies. I have confidence in the present government and believe that by the approach already taken in the Clark report, through amendments to the social security program that have already taken place and by the government's continuing negotiations with the provinces and the municipalities in respect of their important roles in carrying out a comprehensive and adequate social welfare program, we are getting for the first time a realistic approach to the problem. Let us be done with auction sale bidding.
I am glad that the amendment to the amendment presented by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) indicates that they have seen the light in this regard and have now discovered it is necessary to take a broader approach. Our senior citizens are assuming an increasingly important role in our society today. Voluntary groups and all levels of government are becoming aware of their responsibilities to the pioneers of our society. I have confidence that their growing needs will be met in adequate fashion by this administration, and certainly by being confronted with this want of confidence motion, so unexpectedly and precipitously presented to the house today, we are not going to move forward in this direction. Therefore I cannot support it.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I must say that since opening the debate today I have been rather disappointed at some of the turns the debate has taken. Unfortunately we have seen the usual contest between the Liberals and the Tories as to who did and who did not introduce or enlarge upon social legislation. We have seen a great cloud of dust raised by the political 79951-0-411i
Old Age Pensions
battle between the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). Furthermore, we have seen a subamendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) which to my mind seems to cloud the issue further. In addition to the dust covering the original intent of the amendment we now have fog mixed with the dust so that if we keep on going we will wind up in smog.
I understand that the Liberal leader in the province of Quebec has put forward the new idea that unemployment is under the jurisdiction and the responsibility of the provinces and the Leader of the Opposition apparently wants to put responsibility for old age pensions back on the provinces as well. Maybe this is the trend of the new Liberalism about which we hear so much.
We have heard complaints about short notice of the amendment, but surely this matter is not something that has suddenly been sprung on the house. If hon. members have been paying any attention whatsoever to their constituencies, surely this is a problem of which they are well aware. If they have any appreciation of conditions in the country, surely the amendment does not constitute a surprise sprung on them at the last minute. We have also heard nice words from hon. members on both sides of the house indicating their support for our old age pensioners but at the same time they do not want to do anything about the problems of these people if they can find some way of putting it off. Nice words are fine but they will not buy very much food for old age pensioners this fall or help them to have fires in their stoves unless we can run off enough reprints of the nice words we have heard today to supply our pensioners with fuel for the winter.
I hope we have not lost sight of the problem with which we are faced by reason of all the diversions I have listed. It is not the Liberal party of 1923 or the Conservative party of 1931 that is going to have to deal with the problems facing old age pensioners today. It is the members of the government and other members sitting in this house a few days before the end of the session who are going to have to decide if they are going to do anything for the old age pensioners other than utter kind words about them. We are going to have to make a decision before the end of the session so that the old age pensioners will know whether they are going to have to face another bleak winter before the government has another opportunity to do something for them.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Old Age Pensions AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 7 p.m.


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter raised by the amendments before the house is of such a nature that I feel the opportunity given to speak on this subject should not be passed up. The manner in which these amendments are raised and the fact that they have been brought before the house at this late date causes one to question the seriousness of the problem in the minds of those who raised the subject, and the seriousness with which they have put forward the matter at this time.
Lately we have seen speculation in the press about when we might have another federal election. It would seem that these amendments and the words that have been spoken by members of the official opposition and the C.C.F. party indicate there is a guessing game going on amongst them as to when we might have the next federal election. Their desire to have material available when that campaign does commence has impelled them to bring this matter before us at this late date in the session, and to get words on Hansard so that they would have some material for the hustings.
I say this, Mr. Speaker, not without some basis. During my time in the house there has been an awful lot of double talk. This double talk is being carried forward today. When I say "double talk" I refer to it from the point of view of considering matters before the house, especially matters that have to do with spending programs of no small measure. There must be some road up which we are going, some consistent pattern that is being kept in mind in relation to the problems that are before the government of the day.
Much has been said about the promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) and the Conservative party during the election campaigns. I took part in the campaign of 1957, at which time I was not successful. I took part also in the campaign of 1958, when I was successful to a much greater degree than was necessary to gain me a seat in the house. In the campaign of 1957, and I think this holds true for most of the Conservative members who are here today, I would say there was a consistent presentation made to the electorate concerning the urgency of some of the problems of that day and the immediate steps the Conservative party, if returned with power sufficient to form a government, would take. Although I was not privileged to be a part of the group that formed the government in 1957 I was

glad to return to the campaign in 1958 on the basis that the promises that were made to cover the urgent problems during the election campaign of 1957 had been kept by the Prime Minister and the party of which he is the head.
In the 1958 campaign it was plainly stated to the public that those things which had been urgent and with which we said we would deal had been dealt with in the session of 1957-58, and we were now asking for a mandate from the people that would give us a tenure of office of some four years or more in which we could with authority, carry forward a long range program containing measures which were not going to be of immediate benefit but would take time. In my opinion we have consistently followed the road in that direction.
I am proud to be a member of this government. I am proud the Prime Minister is my leader. He is a national figure in Canada whose status does not require any build-up from me. His status is recognized and it is evident, from what is taking place in this house and from the speeches made by the opposition, that his stature is so great that, regardless of the guise under which they bring matters before this house, they want to try to destroy his stature. They have not made much progress to date, and I suggest they will make even less progress as the Prime Minister's stature becomes greater and greater.
The amendment put forward by the C.C.F. is a motion made by a group in this house whose aspirations to become the federal government have over a great many years made absolutely no progress, nor will they within the foreseeable future. There is practically no hope that they will ever be saddled with the responsibility of carrying on the government, initiating government policy. This fact, therefore, leaves them free to speak without restraint and to suggest further commitments on the government without any consideration of the problems that would be involved. We continually hear from them, therefore, during the days, weeks and months, suggestions which if implemented, without any exaggeration would probably add billions of dollars annually to the expenditures of this government. To them $200 million is nothing. It is nothing where they have no power and no responsibility.
But we can judge the party by their record. My friend the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) will not like this because the last thing he wants to hear anything about -and he has said so more than once-is the C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan. But where the C.C.F. party have power they have

a record; and those of us who live in Saskatchewan and those of us who read and see the reports can judge them on the record.
I well remember the early days of that movement. I remember a program of socialization, land under lease and things of that sort. In the main I remember a program of social welfare, of humanity first; a program whereby they were going to institute industry and business in Saskatchewan under state control. The money that flowed in the front door and out the back door of those enterprises was going to be of such magnitude that we would have medical care, health care, hospitalization and education and we would not have to pay one cent of taxes.
That is not an exaggeration. To my hon. friend who is sitting down there at the other end of the chamber looking at me and who is now going to take off his glasses and clean them so that he can see better, I suggest that all he has to do is to go back and read the Leader-Post.


Harold Edward Winch: What a paper to read.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: In those days it printed these things and they were never denied. Read the Regina manifesto. Read the speeches that were made by the present premier or by others of the C.C.F. party that formed that government when they came to power in 1944. Then look at the record. Those industries that were going to provide the funds are defunct. The state could not run them. They could not operate them. They could not compete in the business world. The product they made was not suitable to the public need. As to their blankets, they were obliged to give them away and use them in institutions. As to the shoes they made, the co-operative stores could not even sell them. And so the record goes with regard to the things they produced that were going to provide the money to pay for all these benefits.
Therefore if I have some reservations and doubts about socialism, it is on the basis of experience. When I say that there is double talk I mean that here is a group representing the socialist party whose record is before you in Saskatchewan, which can speak very well without responsibility; but where they have responsibility in Saskatchewan, with agriculture in the position in which it is supposed to be, when a suggestion is made that they remove the taxes on farm fuel and provide farm fuel for farmers' trucks which in effect would have meant a reduction in provincial revenues of an amount as to which we saw many figures-one of the C.C.F. campaigners said it was $200 million; the attorney general in a speech said it was $5 million-they said, "We cannot afford it; what do you want us to cut down on; where
Old Age Pensions
can we get extra revenue?" But here, when they blithely talk about federal expenditures that will exceed $200 million, they can do it when they have no responsibility. However, where they have responsibility in the provincial field when a suggestion is made that might help an industry that is the foundation of the province in which they form the government to the extent of $2 million or $2,500,000 or $5 million, it is said to be beyond all possibility; they accept no responsibility; they can do nothing about it.
In Saskatchewan the municipal taxes per person on the average are the highest in Canada. That statement has been made a good many times and I have never seen it denied. That is the position of a party that, as I say, provides this double talk. While they are doing it, of course, they continue to make insinuations and to build up the idea that members of the government have no regard for the plight of the people in the old age pension group, the old age assistance group, the blind assistance group and many other persons in groups that need any sort of aid. They assert that they are the sole group that bears in mind these needs and the sole group that propounds a policy to meet those needs.
Here again there are two areas in the old age field. One is the group eligible for old age security which is universal and contributory and the other is the old age assistance group. That is the group from 65 to 69 who, on the basis of need and by a means test, can obtain a pension of, I believe, up to $55 on a shared basis between the provincial and federal governments. This is assistance that is granted in most provinces of Canada on this basis. But in Saskatchewan where we have this party of socialists or what are presumed to be socialists, with policies that are not supposed to be orthodox financially but are supposed to be different; where we have had a finance minister now retiring as of August 1 who has consistently followed a pattern of balancing his budget, so he asserts and reducing the debt and so on, who followed a very orthodox pattern but when any demands were made on the provincial government has pleaded inability to meet them because of the requirement that he follow that orthodox financial procedure; where we have this party in power, in a field where supplementary benefits are granted in many provinces of Canada, the supplementary benefits in Saskatchewan have a range presumably of $2 or $2.50 a month to a maximum of $10 and the means test they impose with regard to those supplementary benefits is of such a vicious nature that the average person receiving those supplementary allowances get in the neighbourhood of $2.50 and $3 per

Old Age Pensions
month. In other provinces where we do not have this great humanity first party-in provinces such as Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia and Manitoba-I believe supplementary allowances are paid of a higher average and they are not confined to the old age assistance group but are also paid to any person qualifying for the old age pension. If that statement is in error, I stand to be corrected. However, that is the information I have.
Hence when the speakers for that party, from that small group in which they are represented in this house, rise in their places and on the basis of their claim to being this great party speak without reservation, without restraint and without responsibility at a time like this in a session of this nature, when the only purpose is not to benefit the persons to whom they wish to refer but rather to draw a big red herring for political purposes across the deliberations of this house, then I say they have left themselves open to the criticisms I have levelled at them.
I do not intend to go back and chastise the people in governments prior to this government for what they may or may not have done. However, I say this. With a desire to bring about measures that will be of lasting benefit to the groups in our country that need assistance, this government since it took office has moved steadily up the road whose path is straight, and its aims and objectives have been reiterated many times by our Prime Minister. In 1957 we raised the old age pension from $46 to $55. That was a step in the right direction. We also reduced the requirement for those who would be entitled to the pension from a domicile of 20 years to one of 10 years. That was another step on the same straight road in the right direction.
Following that we gave consideration to the position of the pensioner who for medical reasons had to leave this country for a warmer climate. This session we have brought in amendments which permit these pensioners to leave this country in the season of extreme weather conditions providing since their 21st birthday they have for a period of 25 years made their contributions to the building up of this country. And they can leave the country forever, if they so wish, and go to a warmer climate where the amenities of life are greater than they are in some areas of Canada. They can go to a foreign country if they like where they have sons or daughters or relatives with whom they can share their expenses. So that throughout the history of our tenure of office we have been moving in a steady direction.
I think the contribution of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) was one of the best I have heard to this debate. It is my experience, which backs up the remarks he made, that considering the plight of these people in terms of money only is not sufficient, that it is too narrow an outlook and does not solve their problems. I have seen a couple of old age pensioners who were well housed and had sufficient means but were very unhappy, isolated and lonesome. We have seen the development of pioneer villages, quarters where these people will have separate facilities but where they will be in association with people of like nature. We have seen a development come about whereby their needs have not been overlooked, such as a recreation hall, a community centre, where they can gather together and share their troubles, their joys and their recreations. So I say that money alone is too narrow a basis from which to look at this situation.
I think the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) in his remarks in this debate showed some doubts about the C.C.F. motion in the setting of a figure of $75. He does not know whether it is enough; he even suggested that it might be too much. That is not a very sound basis for presenting a spending motion to this house. I think the people of this country are fully aware of the demands on government today. I think they share in the universal desire that a country with the resources and the areas we have should develop in a manner and with the responsibility which will provide some measure of security for them to share in and work and sacrifice.
Along with that, I think even the person to whom these benefits flow is realistic enough to know and has known through the years when he was sacrificing and serving and working that government without responsibility, government which goes hither and thither, government which tries to cater to one segment against the over-all interests of the country is not government that can survive. So in this day I say we are moving steadily along the road which our Prime Minister has indicated is the policy of our party which he desires to follow. We may be moving along it more slowly than had been hoped, but if this is so I suggest there are good, sound reasons that the public of Canada, the recipients of these benefits, accept and realize.
Since we have come into power we have not had an easy time of it. We have had to fight a recession in peace without the benefit of war, as always happened to our friends to bail them out.


Harold Edward Winch: Did the hon. member say the benefit of war?


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: They always got bailed out of their recessions by a war. Tell me one time when they faced a critical problem involving money when war did not get them out of it? They took over power in 1935 but never got us out of the recession of the thirties. I was in business and know something about it. I was in Saskatchewan where we not only had a recession to face but we did not have a blade of green grass. I well remember that 1937 was about as bad as any year of the thirties had been, and we got out of it after war was declared in 1939. Liberal policies, Liberal programs and Liberal foresight never got them out of a recession.
Then things steamrollered and went along. We were in war and money meant nothing. Everyone realized we had to protect ourselves and carry on. During that period there was unspent purchasing power built up and after the war that carried us on. Then we were hit with a slump and had unemployment. Did Liberal policy get us out of that? Not to my knowledge. The Korean episode got us out of that. They were the 22 golden years of Liberal reign. Then there was an abundance of Liberal policies. There was an abundance also of rainfall and many other things, and countries which had been destroyed and had no industries came back into world markets to purchase.
Then we came to the position where the Liberal government was in a very critical position. The public did not know it, the Liberal government never told them, and that was the only thing which saved their bacon on this occasion, the third time in 22 years. Then the people kicked them out and we found out that they knew all the time that there was a depression on the doorstep and that they had no policy or program to get us out of it. That is the record of the Liberal government's programs and policies as far as getting us out of a depression is concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Yes, when I am through, if I have time. I think I have said enough about the double talk of the C.C.F. party, although I have not even talked about the Liberal party yet and may not have much time to.
The chief spokesman in this debate for the Liberal party was the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). I must say that apart from the parade which takes place on the lawns outside this house at ten o'clock every morning, the hon. member for Essex East is probably the greatest tourist attraction which we have in Ottawa. Certainly his name is
Old Age Pensions
known far and wide over Canada, certainly in all the places he has visited. I have had occasion, as I mentioned before, to have him visit my area and we welcome him any time. He is a sociable, decent sort of fellow to come in, but I want to get back to his performance in this house.


Harold Edward Winch: How about getting back to the amendment?


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I have been talking about it all the time just as consistently as other members of your party and of the Liberal party who have spoken about it.
The hon. member for Essex East in his contribution to this debate spoke in words which I think, by and large, supported the amendment proposed by the C.C.F. Certainly I thought he was very much more definite in his pronouncement that this was an urgent matter regardless of the record of the government of which he played a part and regardless of any dilly-dallying they may have done with problems of this sort which faced them.
The hon. gentleman said that it was this government's responsibility, that there could be no question about the urgency of the matter, that it must be dealt with immediately. It was either the leader of the C.C.F. group or the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) who said that as they analysed the proposal it would cost some $200 million. In supporting a measure of this nature I am just wondering what way the hon. member for Essex East is going. I cannot help but wonder from what sort of base he was operating. Was it from a base purely of political expediency or from a base of a sincere recognition of the need of these pensioners?
I have sat in this house during the past two years and on many occasions have listened to the hon. member condemn in no uncertain terms the policy of this government, the size of its budget and the size of its deficit. The hon. member has made those criticisms during the present session. On one occasion I heard the hon. gentleman suggest that the unemployment insurance should be expanded to make benefits payable to people who were off from work due to illness. Today I heard him support a measure that would add $200 million annually to the budget of the government.
I find it impossible to follow the arguments the hon. member has presented to this house. I say that he is a great actor because whether he is on his feet criticizing the government for expending too much or criticizing it for failure to spend more he seems as sincere, enthusiastic and vigorous in debate on both sides of the fence so no one knows which side really means the most to

Old Age Pensions
the hon. gentleman. When the hon. gentleman is on his feet propounding the theory he has that this government's actions are restricting our trade and hampering us in expanding our world markets he seems very sincere and when he rises in his place to say that we should ban Russian automobiles and impose a tax on small cars coming in from Britain and France he seems equally sincere. I do not know what policy the hon. gentleman really espouses.
This is not a matter with which one should play politics. I am sure that every hon. member deeply and sincerely wishes to see this country develop a splendid system of security for its pioneers, for its people who are second to none in the world. I say this cannot be done by moving in several directions at once without regard to the over-all picture.
I had a thought which may not mean very much but I should like to express it. I know that in 1957 when the Liberals raised the pension from $40 to $46, Mr. Harris in bringing the proposal before the house said that in view of the position of the Canadian economy this increase was one which the economy could afford but beyond that the government could not go. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) in speaking today suggested that $65 might now be a more appropriate figure. That is just more double talk. I have sat and listened time after time to hon. members opposite criticizing this government because the Canadian economy is not developing rapidly enough and the policies of the Conservative government are restricting its expansion. Yet within a matter of three years from the time when in the view of the Liberal government the economy warranted a pension of only $46 a month hon. gentlemen opposite argue that the Canadian economy warrants the payment to old age pensioners of a pension of $65 a month. It must be remembered that today there is a larger group of pensioners. Hon. gentlemen opposite by their own statements have indicated that the economy has expanded under the Conservative government if they feel that the economy can reasonably afford a payment of $65 a month. I would want to examine the situation carefully before I would claim that that is so. However, this admission is based on their own contributions to this debate.
In conclusion let me say I am proud to be a member of the government headed by the Prime Minister. The people of Canada know his sincere and deep interest in the problems that have been debated here today. The Canadian people are not unaware of the difficulties this government has experienced since taking office. The people know that this

government would not be so irresponsible as to serve one segment of Canada by moving off in the direction and to the extent suggested by the amendments proposed today. Consistently, within the means of the government and without increasing the burden on the people, this government is moving along the path leading to those things the Prime Minister set out in his platform and in his proposals to the Canadian people. As long as we hold office under his leadership we shall move steadily forward.
I shall not support the amendment. I shall continue to support a government whose path is clear, a government that is moving toward the objectives it set for itself before it took office.


Mr, Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
gentleman was good enough to say that he would answer a question of mine. My question is the following. Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the Liberal government which was previously in office had hidden the fact that there was a depression coming and that it took the present government six months to find that out? If that is a fact, does the hon. member not think it indicates either that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his colleagues were pretty ignorant or pretty stupid?


John William Kucherepa: The hon. member did not say that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let the hon. gentleman answer.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate should be one of the last people in this house to ask a question like that. I believe it was the hon. member who made a television appearance in Toronto back in 1957 or 1958 and when asked if he did not think that the status of the economy of Canada as put forward by the Liberal party in seeking re-election had been put forward in a false manner said, "I do not think so at all".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just to keep the record straight, Mr. Speaker, let me say that to the best of my knowledge and belief I was never on television in Toronto in my life.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, we have just listened to a weird and wonderful speech. The hon. member was supposed to be discussing the amendments before this house and he took the full period of time available to him. His speech consisted of not less than a 20 minute diatribe against the Saskatchewan government, a five minute diatribe against the Liberal party, a five minute period which he devoted to scratching the back of his leader and he spoke not one word on the amendments. The hon. gentleman

certainly received the courtesy of the house in not being called out of order.
I said it was a weird speech. The hon. gentleman began by saying he had been listening to a lot of double talk. He immediately followed that by almost weeping tears over the fact that a matter of such importance as this should have been raised by this group at this late stage in the session. I never heard such unadulterated hypocrisy as contained in that sentence, that at this late date this important issue should have been raised by the C.C.F. The only reason we have raised it is because the government has utterly failed to do so. I get my inspiration from above; where you folks get it God only knows.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Edward Winch: May I point out to my hon. friends that we have the right to question the sincerity of the attack on us because the matter is raised at this stage of the session. If it is wrong to raise an important issue at this time because you happen to be in the opposition, then what does the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) think about the bill of rights being introduced at this stage of the session? What does he think about the important issue of national defence being referred to the committee so late in the session that the committee has not yet had an opportunity to complete its hearings and report?


An hon. Member:: What about the amendment?


Harold Edward Winch: What does he think about the special committee appointed to study such matters as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? I suppose it is quite all right if you are a government member and it is done by your leader; but it is completely wrong if somebody else things that perhaps while the house is sitting and responsibilities have not been accepted by the government certain matters should be raised.


Mr. Graffiey:: You would look good in Hyde park.


Harold Edward Winch: The hon. member for Regina City said that $200 million is nothing to the C.C.F. It was the C.C.F. that drew to the attention of the house the fact that we calculated that that is what it would cost if the house passed the amendment and the government took action. The most important thing is not fighting with the C.C.F. for bringing in this amendment; it is not the fact that we have not the full details of where the $200 million would come from; the important thing is completely ignored by the 79951-0-412
Old Age Pensions
Conservative speakers and in particular by the hon. member for Regina City. Do promises mean nothing to the government? This is a question that should be answered, and it is certainly the question that they are definitely going to hear.
There was, as I said, about a 25 minute diatribe against the C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan. May I just very briefly tell my hon. friends that just recently the people of Saskatchewan, through the democratic process of parliamentary procedure, re-elected the government of Saskatchewan and you cannot say the same thing for Union Nationale of Quebec, or the Conservatives of New Brunswick.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or the Conservatives of Saskatchewan.


Harold Edward Winch: May I also tell my hon. friends that this is the first time during this entire session that the C.C.F. has had the opportunity or the right to introduce an amendment to a supply motion.


William Heward Grafftey: You always had the right.


Harold Edward Winch: This is a most important issue. I can tell the hon. member for Regina City, even if the Conservatives want to forget it, that during the last election it was mentioned quite often. I tell the hon. member that I know of no one party, one leader or one candidate in that campaign who was not very much exercised over the predicament, the condition or the plight and the needs of the old age pensioners. I do not know one party, one leader or one candidate who was not going to do something about it is he was elected.


William Heward Grafftey: We did.


Harold Edward Winch: The Conservatives obtained a majority; they elected 208 members. Did their promises not mean anything to them?
Speaker after speaker on the Conservative side has told us that we have moved the amendment but we do not understand the difficulties, the problems and the hurdles that have to be overcome. Did you realize that when you made those campaign promises? If you did, you must have known that you were going to have to do something about them, and if you did not then you were making empty, completely empty, promises with no intention of doing anything about them.
Promises at election time are futile unless something is done about them. Considerable time has elapsed since the election of 1958. As speakers from our group have pointed out time after time, there has been an increase in the cost of living of old age pensioners. The fact is their standard of living

Old Age Pensions
is going down. It must go down when costs go up and their pensions remain stationary. We are asking, as we can only ask, the government to give consideration to the advisability of fulfilling its promises and doing something now. We suggest $75 a month be paid to the old age pensioners.
We hear so much-we have heard it today -about the pioneers of Canada and of how much we owe them. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin), the old age pensioners can appreciate that but they cannot pay the rent with it and they cannot eat it. They are in a difficult position, in a much more difficult position than most people who work on a job and who can fight through their trade unions to better their condition. The trade unionist can fight, and the employer can fight through his organization and through some members or through representations to parliament. He can fight for the maintenance of his position or the improvement of it, but the senior citizens of this country if they are over 70 years of age are dependent wholly and solely on what parliament does. Surely we have a responsibility to them; we have an obligation to do something for them. Many of them are in a difficult position. I know many of them who today have to spend nearly all of their pension to pay rent. We have no rent control, therefore they have no protection.


Henry Frank Jones: Why does the C.C.F. government not do something for them? They had a surplus of over $3,500,000?


Harold Edward Winch: Why does the government of Canada not do something? Why do you not talk about what is within your power instead of what is within the power of the provincial government?


Henry Frank Jones: We gave them an extra pension.


Harold Edward Winch: Yes.


Henry Frank Jones: We gave the Saskatchewan government $32,500,000.


Harold Edward Winch: You had better give them some more.


Henry Frank Jones: They had a surplus this year.


Harold Edward Winch: I have an idea that the matter will be officially handled by the government that has received a new vote of confidence from the people of that province. I say they have led the way in the past and others have followed. I have no doubt that situation is going to continue. Of course, when you follow you just take credit unto yourself for having initiated it.


Henry Frank Jones: We just paid for it.


Harold Edward Winch: You took credit for hospital insurance which was started years before. The hon. member had better get up and make his own speech. My time is nearly exhausted.
I say that we do have a responsibility and we are asking that it be accepted. We are asking that you fulfil your promises and not postpone them any longer. If this amendment is passed it will be only an interim settlement of the promises. Do not just sit on your backsides and talk in generalities, in flowery terms, scratching the back and licking the boots of your leader. That is not going to solve the problems or fulfil the promises made in order to get elected.


William Heward Grafftey: At least we have a leader.


Harold Edward Winch: If I am to judge by the reaction I received in my trip across Canada your leader is leading you down the dark path, not the golden path.


William Heward Grafftey: That is wishful thinking.


Harold Edward Winch: As a matter of fact, we had an indication of that in the last three provincial elections.


An hon. Member:: I do not think so.


William Heward Grafftey: You did not even run a candidate in Quebec.


Harold Edward Winch: If they want me to get into that I will be glad to meet them.


William Heward Grafftey: You are the leader tonight.


Harold Edward Winch: There is a difference; you have only one; we are all leaders.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speakman:: There are no sheep to follow.


Harold Edward Winch: Hon. members seem to be in a hilarious mood tonight or else I have really got them where it hurts, and I think the latter is the correct interpretation. I was rather surprised at the statement made by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) this afternoon who said that we in this group have never raised any issues concerning the underprivileged and those in needy circumstances except today with respect to old age pensions. He made that charge against me, as a matter of fact, and I deny it.
I should like to point out that we not only speak in the house on behalf of people in need but we try to take action outside the house even when governments fail to do so. Because the hon. member for Simcoe East made this charge against me I think he should be informed that as we could not get action from the government for assistance to handicapped persons in need the New Vista society, of which I am the only lifetime

director appointed by statute of British Columbia, constructed the first apartment building in Canada architecturally designed in every manner, shape and form in order to accommodate handicapped persons in the lower income group. We proved that it could be done. I say that we not only speak in the House of Commons on these matters but that to the limit of our ability and the extent that money is available, if we can raise it, we demonstrate outside the house that we believe in the things we espouse on the floor of the House of Commons.
From my knowledge of the situation and the needs of our old age pensioners I am sure that they wholeheartedly support the amendment moved by this party, but I do want to say that I am bitterly disappointed with the subamendment moved by the official opposition. Admittedly there are suggestions here which merit considerable study and consideration but I have to oppose it, first, because it gets away from the specific immediate need, as expressed in the C.C.F. amendment, of consideration being given to raising the allowance to $75 a month and, second, because it introduces a principle which I can only interpret as meaning a return to a means test basis of granting old age pensions.
For years the people of this country and many members of parliament fought to get away from the principle of a means test involving charity to the senior citizens of our country. We maintained that the pension was a matter of right and not charity and eventually that correct principle was established. I say it would be a retrograde step of the most serious kind to give the slightest consideration to a return to the principle of a means test. The words "in co-operation with the provinces, for increases in the old age pensions to meet special hardships" can only mean a return to a vicious principle. We fought hard enough to get rid of this vicious principle without trying to re-introduce it once it has been abolished. For these reasons I have to oppose the subamendment introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson).
In whatever time is left in this debate I hope we can discuss the matter before us on the basis of the amendment and the subamendment, the principle of fulfilling the promises made by all parties, all leaders and all candidates to our senior citizens during the last election campaign and a recognition of the need at the present time. I feel certain that a government which has found and will find all the money it needs for defence purposes and has no objection to wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on Bomarcs can, if it has any interest in its own people, 79951-0-412J
Old Age Pensions
find the necessary $200 million or $225 million in order to express our gratitude and our recognition of the right of old age pensioners, not to a subsistence level of living but to the best possible security that a grateful country can and is willing to make available.


Mr. O. H. Phillips (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, it is customary to comment on the remarks of the preceding speaker. I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) and I really could not find any meat or substance in his speech on which to comment. He started off by being very critical of the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More).


Harold Edward Winch: He was very critical of us.


Orville H. Phillips: He then proceeded to follow the old political axiom that when you have nothing to say you shout. He spent about 20 minutes shouting and finally took his seat after having said very little.


Murdo William Martin: Let us hear some words of wisdom now.


Orville H. Phillips: The general tenor of the remarks on social security has been that social security should be the objective of a free society. I do not think it is necessarily the prime objective of a free society but rather that our objective should be to attempt to increase production and improve the general standards of living and to accomplish this end without spending our time in an attempt to redistribute the benefits of the taxpayers' labours.
There are two basic forms of security, emotional security and financial or material security. The amendment and the subamendment both tend to play on the emotional side of life but they go one step further and try to introduce a new form of security, political security. The amendment calls for the expenditure of at least $200 million annually to provide $75 per month to every person entitled to old age security, and this amount is to be paid regardless of financial need. I wonder how the hon. member who moved the amendment would like to approach the unions and explain that it would be necessary to make an extra deduction from their pay cheques in order to support a retired manager of the C.N.R., a bank manager or a manager of an automobile factory, persons of that type who have very little need of financial assistance in their old age.
This deduction would be in addition to an already lengthy list of deductions and the situation will not be made any easier when employees realize that often as much as one third of deductions of this nature is spent on administrative costs. I am sure that any

Old Age Pensions
one of the eight C.C.F. members would be willing to go to Montreal, address members of the Canadian Labour Congress and tell them that the amendment introduced by the C.C.F. would require the deduction of at least $300 annually from their pay cheques, only $200 of which would be paid out in actual benefits, the other $100 being used up in administrative costs.


Murdo William Martin: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Orville H. Phillips: Certainly.


Murdo William Martin: Is the hon. member not aware that the Canadian Labour Congress passed this very same motion at their convention?


Orville H. Phillips: I am well aware of that, Mr. Speaker, I am aware also of the fact that the C.C.F. members very carefully avoided explaining the cost in individual terms to the members of the congress.
When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) was speaking he emphasized the necessity for keeping social security expenditures in line with the financial situation in the country. I must admit that I thought he was doing very well and that he was in one of his rare moods when he showed some signs of political sanity and reality. However, the mood was short-lived and he reverted to his usual tactics of Alice in Wonderland. He became very generous. He was outbidding the C.C.F. in an effort to gain votes. Then he moved the subamendment, using as his excuse the idea that the Grits could not support the principle of a pension being fixed at one level. When he presented the subamendment it was easy to understand his generosity. He was actually dealing with the funds of the provinces. The subamendment emphasized the co-operation of the provinces in providing increased pensions.
Later on the subamendment referred to old age security and old age assistance. Now it is very easy to offer to increase social security measures when you are using the funds of the provincial governments. This is nothing new in the tactics of the Liberal party. We recall that they were 28 years in introducing health insurance, and then they required the provinces to pay their share of the costs. We have now a new innovation. The Grits are going to ask the provinces to move into the field of old age security. Some mention was made earlier of the fact that there is to be a dominion-provincial conference held in Ottawa.
The hon. member for Vancouver East was requesting more money for the provinces. I am sure he will find support for that amongst other members of the opposition. I am sure

we will hear a great deal about that before the end of this session. It is so easy to advocate more money for the provinces at one moment, and then in the next ask the provinces to take over the field of old age security, which is a very expensive field. It is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul or, perhaps I should say more correctly, it is robbing Peter to pay for Paul. I am sure that the new premiers of Quebec and New Brunswick, who will have to pay for their very expensive campaign promises, would appreciate their leader-if indeed he is their leader- asking them to take over the field of old age security. We certainly know that the province of Saskatchewan, with its socialist government, has no intention of moving into that field.
Last September we had a Progressive Conservative government elected in Prince Edward Island after 22 years of Liberal rule. We were left a legacy of debt and bank overdrafts. In fact at one time between the election campaign and the swearing in of the new government the bank notified the former premier that it was not very anxious to cash any more cheques for the province. Now the Liberal subamendment would move the provincial government into a much more expensive field. I am sorry but I do not believe our province would care to accept the subamendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.
The subamendment later calls for a national contributory scheme in co-ordination with the existing provisions for retirement. This sounds very simple. It looks to be fairly straightforward, but I would ask hon. members to look this political gift horse squarely in the mouth. This morning in the agriculture committee one of the officials of the Department of National Revenue read one of the customs regulations. When he had finished an hon. member asked him to explain what it meant when it was translated. I think we should stop and attempt to translate this simple descriptive term "in co-ordination with existing provisions for retirement".
I interpret this term to mean simply that the government would assume full control of all pension schemes already in existence. This means the Liberal party would take over all retirement schemes, whether they be for professional persons contributing to insurance schemes, for union members contributing to a scheme within a plant or a government annuity purchased by the ordinary worker. I can just see the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) standing up in this house and, with a rather beneficent smile, telling everyone that the Liberal party has now provided these things for the people

of Canada, but very carefully avoiding mention of the fact that they had taken over complete control of the schemes that previously existed.
I do not wish to leave the impression that I am opposed to social security. I have seen the benefits of social security in my own riding, and especially the results of the increased benefits that this government provided. I have received a good many expressions of gratitude from my constituents for the benefits of the Diefenbaker government. However, it is still necessary to review social security, and review it in the light of present conditions. I do not feel I can support either the amendment or the subamendment until they are taken out of the political wonderland and brought into the harsh realm of fact and reality. Then I am sure not only myself but all hon. members in this house would give them support.
(Translation):


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I was pleasantly surprised to read the amendment put forward by the C.C.F. to raise old age pensions to $75 a month. However, I have here a brief from the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour asking that they be raised to $80 a month.
I am also surprised at the amendment suggested by the Liberals. They should have thought of it before, when they were in power, because now the people have no confidence in them. When they were in office, they came out with surplusses of over $500 million a year, yet they raised the pensions by no more than a paltry $6 a month, which was ridiculous and was to the detriment of Canada's older men and women. I think that very fact showed that the Liberal party was shirking its responsibilities, and caused it to lose the confidence of the Canadian people.
I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, in failing to refer at this time to the brief submitted to the Canadian cabinet on February 1, 1960 by the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour. On page 12 of that brief, here is what we find:
The old age and retirement pension The C.C.C.L.'s proposal on old age and superannuation pensions involves the following:
1.	A pension of $80 per month to men and women from age 60, under a universal old age pension plan, the cost of which would be shared by the federal government and by the provinces on a basis of three fifths to two fifths;
2.	The provision of a reasonable period of residence in Canada as a prerequisite for benefits:
3.	Abolition of the means test;
Old Age Pensions
4.	Establishment of a contributory insurance for wage earners, with a reserve fund to provide for a retirement pension of $80 per month at age 60 for both men and women. Wage earners would pay 40 per cent of the premium; employers would pay the balance required to preserve the soundness of the fund: governments would be responsible for administration costs and for writing off any deficits.
5.	Protection for existing group pension plans, leaving the door open to the establishment of further plans through collective bargaining, in addition to the plans suggested above.
6.	The establishment of suitable organizations to supervise the administration of the act and to ensure that pensions are paid to those entitled to them.
Mr. Speaker, this brief submitted by national Catholic unions on February 1, 1960, was very favourably considered by the Prime Minister of Canada. I am sure that all hon. members in this house favour increased old age pensions and even family allowances, but it must be done in accordance with the budget and revenue of the Canadian government.
In conclusion, I have a suggestion to make to the government and I hope that it will meet with its approval, because I should like the Canadian government to carry it out in the near future. I am thinking of a national lottery, the profits of which would serve to increase old age pensions and family allowances. People hate taxes. The government does not manufacture money. The government collects and administers the taxpayers' money and distributes it fairly.
I think that the establishment of a national lottery by the federal government would contribute to increase the revenue of the state, would help our old people and would also make it possible to raise family allowances.
(Text):


Mr. R. S. MacLellan (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, this has been a great year for the examination of human rights in general and the relations of the human person to the state. We had earlier in the session an extremely interesting debate on capital punishment during which we discussed at great length the rights of the individual as against the state when he is convicted of a crime and the question of whether the state has unlimited powers over the individual who is convicted of a crime. Last week, we discussed the bill of rights. In a very good three-day debate hon. member after hon. member rose to discuss the rights of man as against the rights of the state and the vital importance and the necessity of protecting our fundamental freedoms, particularly in an age when the power of the state is growing day by day.

Old Age Pensions
I am very much pleased this evening to hear a debate on a third great element of government function, namely the matter of social legislation and social security. I am also glad to see so many hon. members taking part in the debate and seizing the opportunity to examine the background and philosophy of our social security. I think more than anything else the history of this century has been a history of the conflict, if you like, or the adjustment between property rights on the one hand and the right of the individual, on the other, to a share of the general wealth of society. The last century was dedicated to the establishment of political democracy. This century was primarily attuned to the development of some phase of economic democracy and a sharing generally of the great wealth that has been manufactured by mankind in the machine age.
In the last century we had the factory acts in Great Britain and the development of the first social security legislation, beginning I believe, in Germany. As the machine age developed and as man moved away from the first notions of laissez faire, that the rights of property were all important and that no entrenchment could be made upon them, there was a change to a sphere where it was recognized beyond any question that the system of capitalism and the right of free enterprise had to be tempered with legislation to keep it under control and to see to it that the profits and the emoluments of industry and of the machine were shared by society.
I may say that as social legislation developed in this country, beginning slowly in the first part of the century and of course gaining great impetus after the depression in the thirties, the Conservative party played a great and constructive role. I have before me an address made in 1957, I believe, by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) called "Distinctive Conservatism" wherein the minister listed some of the contributions the Conservative party has made across the years to the development of Canada as the social nation we know today and to restricting the unlimited powers of capitalism in our free enterprise society. The minister said this:
Our party's record in the field of social security and labour legislation has been the object of the basest and most desperate misrepresentation by our political adversaries. One cabinet minister is reported as having said ... "the Liberals have introduced all the social legislation". K he made the statement it is as false as any statement can be. Look at our party's record.
It was Sir John A. Macdonald, who, in 1873, introduced the legislation that made it possible for labour to organize into unions and even to strike
[Mr. MacLellan.l
without offending the provisions of the Criminal Code, at a time when Liberals were advocating the adoption of stern measures against employees of the Globe who were then organizing and claiming the right to strike. This measure may be regarded as the beginning of effective labour legislation in Canada.
It was a Conservative government in 1894 that by legislation set apart Labour day as a national holiday.
It was a Conservative government in Ontario in 1914 that introduced workmen's compensation.
It was a Conservative government at Ottawa which in 1918 introduced workmen's compensation for government employees and employees on government railways.
It was Sir Robert Borden who appointed the first trade union member as minister of labour- the hon. Gideon Robertson then vice president of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers.
It was under the Borden government in 1918 that legal status was given to trade unions with the statutory right to organize for collective bargaining.
It was the Borden government in 1918 which first introduced federal financial assistance for the technical training of workers.
It was the Bennett government in 1931 which increased the federal contribution to old age pensions from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. The Bennett government's "New Deal" of 1935 included legislation to provide for a compulsory weekly day of rest, the eight-hour day and 48 hour week, fair trade practices, national minimum wages, and to establish the employment and social insurance commission, and the trade and industry commission. When the King government came into office in October 1935 it referred all these measures to the courts and only weakly defended them, with the result that many of them were ruled to be unconstitutional. It was by this base political treachery that the Bennett reform legislation was destroyed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman not think that that statement is a shocking reflection on the courts?


Robert Simpson MacLellan: I must say that the attitude shown by members of the opposition this afternoon suggested that the King government of that day opposed this legislation introduced by Mr. Bennett, and I certainly believe it was weakly defended in the courts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They did not oppose it.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: I think the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) said this afternoon that it was opposed by the Liberal party of the day.
To continue the speech of the Minister of Finance, he went on:
Our party supported family allowances. It was as a result of Conservative efforts that the allowance was increased in 1949 for families with more than one child. The Liberal government appropriated the following plank written into the Conservative platform at the national convention at Ottawa in 1948. "Family allowances will be placed on a uniform basis per child, regardless of the number of children in the family."

Mr. Drew's advocacy of social security and welfare legislation can be best judged by the scope of the reform legislation which he introduced in Ontario in his first session as premier in 1944. This legislation included limitation of the hours of work to 48 per week, compulsory vacations with pay, the establishment of the Ontario labour relations board, legislation to prevent discrimination on the ground of race or creed, increased workmen's compensation and the establishment of the department of planning and development.
Pensions for the disabled were first introduced by the Conservative government in Ontario. The present federal pension for the disabled is not as generous as was the Ontario provincial pension.
That statement was of course made in 1957 before the present government came into power and made available the funds which helped to increase disability pensions.
For nearly 50 years the Liberal party has been talking about health insurance but never introducing it.
Again that was a statement made in 1957.
Today the Frost government in Ontario is in the process of calling this Liberal bluff by announcing its intention to introduce hospital insurance.
I might go on to say that one of the first old age pensions acts in Canada, if not the first, was introduced by the Harrington government in Nova Scotia in 1933.
After the depression it was recognized by everyone in the democracies of the western world that social security would have to be introduced for two reasons; first of all to provide a greater share of the national wealth for all people and, second, to provide more economic stability in our nations. This was a movement all over the democratic world in the thirties in which, I am glad to say, Canada participated. Redistribution of wealth was one of the ways which could accomplish both economic stability and social security as for example in the unemployment insurance legislation.
I feel there is much yet to be done. Our civilization has to progress in many ways yet. We have great advances to make in education. We need readily available college education for all our competent young men and women and vocational training to provide new skills for people who need those skills so badly in this machine age. We have also great advances to make in medical care; to provide more social aid for the unemployable and so on. I personally believe one of the next great advances we should make in social legislation is the provision of a retirement income on a contributory basis for all Canadians.
At the moment there are a great number of people in Canada in employer and employee plans, I believe some two million. These plans leave much to be desired inasmuch as many of them are not transferable, and if a man moves from one occupation to another
Old Age Pensions
or from one industry to another he oftentimes cannot take his retirement plan with him.
We could make great progress by establishing a compulsory contributory national retirement plan. Some of the plans we have already in existence require a contribution from the employer and the employee and are very good. I believe one of the best is the civil service superannuation plan which was considerably augmented by legislation brought in this session by the Minister of Finance. Under the civil service superannuation plan, a contributory plan, male employees contribute per cent of their salary and females 5 per cent. The contributions are matched by the government and are set aside to provide a good retirement fund.
It is easy to see why pensions provided by this fund are so substantial. If a man sets aside six and one half per cent of his income as a saving toward retirement and if it is matched by a like contribution from the government this amounts to 13 per cent of a man's salary. In the case of a man earning $6,000 a year, this would come to $780 a year which obviously will provide a good pension plan. The plan not only provides a pension for a man who retires at age 60 if he wishes, or age 65, but it also provides in the case of sudden death an insurance benefit to his widow and children. In the case where a man dies leaving a widow and children the widow will receive one half of what the contributor would have been entitled to, and each child receives 20 per cent of that amount. The plan gives retirement security as well as good protection for a civil servant and his family, and I hope the day is not too far away when this nation will consider it can afford setting up such a national contributory system for all Canadians.
I would point out that this legislation, apart from providing very much needed social security, would also help stabilize the economy of the nation. One of the great challenges to government in the last 20 or 30 years has been to try to introduce into the economy of the nation such stabilizers as will prevent a boom and bust type of economy. A retirement income plan which requires every Canadian to save a certain amount of money each year to be put aside for his retirement will help take up the burden of supporting older people of the nation and will also help put away into savings, money which can be used to build up the nation.
However, while in favour of the development of a contributory national retirement system, I am aware that everything cannot

Old Age Pensions
be done at once. Mr. Mackenzie King in his nomination speech of 1919 at the Liberal convention set forth a wide program of social legislation, much of which he was able to implement in his lifetime. At the same time it took many years to implement it, and of course there is a certain part of it even not yet implemented. The social security of the nation must be paid for by that section of our nation which is employed and working. This group can only support a certain amount of social legislation at one time.
In addition to this there is the matter of priorities, as I fully realize. At a time when the rampant inflation which followed the last war has forced up the cost of Canadian goods to the point where they are not finding the same acceptance across the world as they did at one time, we have an unemployment problem born of automation and resultant from the necessity of cutting our costs of production to meet competition from other nations. Perhaps this problem requires first claim to whatever available new social security funds can be found at the present time, to train more men to do the highly skilled work of the machine age, and also to provide unemployment work projects at the present time.
I am hopeful that as soon as the government feels the nation can afford it, it will consider very carefully the establishment of a national contributory retirement scheme. I believe that the Prime Minister's (Mr. Dief-enbaker) leadership in having an examination made of the social security scheme in the United States indicates that he feels that this should be done as soon as the nation can afford to do it. All social security legislation must wait the time when it can be paid for by the working group. As money can be found I am in favour of further social security. It is required for the stabilization of the economy, and also to the end that the law of "love thy neighbour" may become more real and vital in our nation.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, the welfare state is nothing new. We have many examples in the world today. Canada has gone a long way on the road to the welfare state. The fact that we have not rushed into it is a good thing in my opinion. No one knows better than I do coming from Saskatchewan the experiments in socialism which have affected that province. I did not intend to draw that into this debate but it has already been drawn in and I thought it would be of interest to hon. members to hear from one who lives in that province and has seen some of the experiments which have worked and some which did not.

The hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) gave no diatribe but presented a well thought out answer to the diatribes that emanated from the far comer of this chamber. The hon. gentleman was a businessman in Regina throughout the first depression which everybody knows certainly was not caused by any Conservative policies.
For the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) to attempt to take credit for all the social legislation in Canada is nothing short of laughable. I do not think that even Mr. Bennett can be given credit for inventing all these things. Many experiments of this nature have been conducted in various European countries and particularly in England. Such things as unemployment insurance, old age pensions, national assistance in one form and another, minimum wages, days of rest, labour legislation and other measures have all been tried by Conservative governments and in many cases were frustrated by determined efforts on the part of the opposition.
I will not bore the house with the fights in the courts. Mr. Laskin, a notable constitutional lawyer in Toronto, has written a book about that. Hon. members can amuse themselves if they want to read his vast volume. He claims that the British North America Act should never have been a frustrating statute and that if it had been interpreted in the light of the knowledge of the special conditions existing in Canada we might have had in a great deal less time many of the reforms which took years to put on the statute books.
It was the government of R. B. Bennett that gave Canada its first wheat board act which set the minimum price of grain at 87J cents a bushel. We who farmed on the prairies in those days knew that this was the first glimmer of hope ever given to western farmers with respect to the price of grain.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that why they all voted for Bennett in 1935?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) is right in form tonight. The hon. gentleman also interrupted my maiden speech in this house. Although he does not like being interrupted himself I remember counting the interruptions he made in one speech of an hon. member of this house and the total was 62 interruptions. I think that is an all-time record. When the hon. gentleman writes the history he has advised me he is writing and which I am told will be greater than anything written by Herodotus or anything written since his time I am sure it will contain a number of pages devoted to the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate. When this notable history

is written I shall return to the study of history and I hope it will be as good as the hon. member says it will be.
The Liberals and the C.C.F. see eye to eye only when they think it will embarrass the present government. Otherwise they make very strange bed partners indeed. This reminds me of the story of the fellow who said, "All you have to do to understand the Liberals and the C.C.F. is to note carefully what they say about each other when they are not gathered together to embarrass the government."
The amendment suggests the payment of a pension in the amount of $75 a month instead of the $55 presently paid. Of course the figure of $75 is simply a figure pulled out of a hat. Everybody knows that $75 today is not sufficient for a person to maintain a lone establishment. It is certainly not enough to pay all the bills for heat, light, water, sewers and upkeep for a private home for one person.


Murdo William Martin: What is the $55
pulled out of?


Mr. Murphy:: Oh, dry up.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: If the sum of $75 would accomplish that we would all be happy indeed. I do not think the old age pension was ever intended to be a complete living for an individual. If you were to attempt to give a complete living to an individual in this modern age in which we all expect to drive big cars and live in modern homes it would readily be seen by those of us who attempt to pay the bills for such homes and who drive such cars that we would never be able to pay enough money to keep up such an arrangement.
In my opinion the old age pension is as much assistance as we can afford to give our senior citizens out of our taxes. I do not think we will ever be able to give them as much as they are worth. My father is still alive. He is 85 years old. He worked for 40 years as a civil servant and raised a family of seven children. Most of those years were spent under a Liberal administration. Needless to say I cannot boast about the remuneration that he received under them. He now gets along on a very small pension.
This brings me to a discussion of what this government has done about pensions. We have been raising the standard of pensions all along the line. If we had a bottomless pit from which to take money we would like to raise them all a good deal more. We raised them for some branches of the civil service. We changed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension act not long ago. One important anomaly that existed under the act and which has now been cleared up is as
Old Age Pensions
follows. When I served in the force and up until the time I left, if you served in the mounted police and then went overseas in the army your time spent overseas in active service did not count for your pension in the mounted police; but if you left the army to serve in the mounted police and went back into the army your time spent in the mounted police was counted for the pension in the army. This sort of thing has been cleared up. If you serve in the army and then serve in the police and go back into the army,, or the other way around, you get the same kind of pension. It is now possible to read some common sense in the pension act.
The only bottleneck is the amount of money that is available for welfare measures. I have not heard any bright ideas from anybody and I am afraid I do not have any to offer either concerning how we are going to raise more money for this purpose without increasing the taxes. I know that hon. gentlemen in the far corner will immediately jump and say we should stop spending our money on defence.
I am a little tired of hearing all this peace front propaganda. I spent seven years in one war; I am not anxious to spend any of my life in another, nor am I anxious for my children to spend any time in a war. I am as much a peace front man in theory as anybody else. I do not want to see my children or my children's children in any war, but I also know this, having lived through the late 1930's, that we might have had no war if we had taken a realistic view of the world situation and spent a little bit of money between 1935 and 1940 to set up the empire air training scheme and train the young men of Canada to fly war planes instead of wandering around looking for work.
I am no peace front man; I do not like to have to fight a war ill equipped and this means physically equipped as well in your own body. I should like to see training to keep you physically fit and particularly mentally fit; that is the way I want to live. I am no peace front propagandist. I get a little bit tired of hearing the double talk, stop spending money on our defences, let us spend it on old age pensions. It is a good idea but can we do it in safety?
I,	for one, am not ready to hand over the future of our country to Mr. Khrushchev or to any of his fellow travellers. We are going to have to raise more money for these social things; we are going to have to raise old age pensions; we are going to have to give the old age pensioners more money because it costs more to buy the luxuries we are used to. We in the Conservative party certainly do not want to deny them to our parents or to our grandparents. One of these days we

Old Age Pensions
are going to be old people ourselves and we want to have a good plan to look after our own old age.
I, for one, think that we have to put in a plan under which we contribute a reasonable amount of our salary while we are young and active to pay for our own security in our own old age. I know that the old people today cannot, of course, benefit from a savings plan. A lot of them did not have any money to save in the days when people say they should have saved for their own old age. If you are raising seven children on a small civil service salary you do not have any money to pay toward a contributory plan.
I should like to see my father get a proper living wage, but we have to get it out of taxes. That is the only way I know. I think myself when this plan is brought in some thought should be given to paying more to the single person and not double perhaps to a married couple. It is the basic income which is necessary to pay your rent, to pay for your food, and so forth and possibly $100 a month for a single person and $150 per month for a married couple might be a more sensible way of doing it than $75 apiece. I certainly have no objection to giving them more; I should like to see them get more, but it has to be a workable plan and it has to be thought out well.
I think the record of this government is such that our senior citizens can look forward to this government treating them as well as any government ever did and a good deal better. Do not throw up Saskatchewan to us. Saskatchewan is right alongside Alberta but in Alberta they pay $15 more to their old people; in British Columbia they pay $20 more. I am not in the habit of handing out bouquets to Social Crediters but the socialists need not think they are the only people who believe in social security, and certainly the Liberals should be quiet on this subject until we finish one parliament.
We have not closed the door on this legislation by any means, as they well know, and to get up at the eleventh hour and holler about what we should be doing when they did not do it themselves seems to be nothing short of hyprocrisy. I do not think this is the time to bring forward this amendment. I think this plan is being considered thoroughly and I for one will be ready at any time to implement help for our citizens.
(Translation):


Mr. C. E. Campeau (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, the matter now before the house is fraught with emotional aspects. It is easy to exploit it at the political level. It is rather

amusing to see that the Liberal party, having finally realized that it had strayed too far from the grassroots, saw fit to use the matter of pensions and social security for its own political ends unaware how ridiculous their recent practice of overbidding has been.
Politically, Pandora's box will accommodate just about anything, but never the exploitation of human misery.
When considering old age pensions, and pensions for widows, industrial retirement plans and similar social security systems, nobody would question their necessity.
Old people who, throughout their lifetime, have contributed to the economic and social progress of the country certainly are entitled to a pension upon reaching an age where their physical condition no longer enables them to be of service, except by their experience of life; and such a pension should be adequate to provide them with the minimum comfort required for a decent life.
No one would dare deny that older women, be they widows or single, are entitled to a pension and to some help from the community.
Finally, with automation and increasing technological specialization, with our modern and accelerated tempo, social security problems are looming larger and larger.
On the matter of old age pensions, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss in failing to mention at this point the great devotion and, indeed the heroism displayed by religious communities in the province of Quebec in caring for old people.
Therefore, I am glad to pay a very special tribute to achievements such as that of the Sisters of Providence, who take a particular care of older people in the very heart of Canada's metropolis, that is in the constituency of St. James, which I represent. I have seen there nuns who devote themselves unstintingly and render an incalculable service to the whole community.
But it is not sufficient to consider the necessity of those measures; we must also consider their desirability and their adequacy within the framework of this country's social needs.
We should certainly not overlook the essential needs in this field, family assistance for instance, which we call family allowances, and which are justifiable and would call, in my opinion, for an immediate adjustment, especially in the province of Quebec, where large families are still in the majority.

Mr. Speaker, I could refer to several other similar measures such as assistance to the disabled, assistance to education and other things which are all fully justified.
Present economic factors must also be considered.
In fact, some economists have claimed rightly or wrongly that increased social security might be another step towards inflation, and that the best way of helping older people would be to reduce inflation to the minimum, so as to impart more value to the pensions they do get. However, whatever the theories of economists may be, there is no doubt that any increase in pensions, however little it may be, will help those recipients. And yet, we should not increase the security of certain citizens to the extent of jeopardizing the social security of the country as a whole. Someone has to pay for such increases which necessarily affect the cost of living, either by way of increased taxation or by higher production costs.
So, we must be very careful in this field, and in this regard, I must congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) who unhesitatingly provided the aged people and all citizens in need of social security with allowances more in line with today's requirements. He did not wait twenty years to do it. Later, he called for a summary of the whole situation before taking the next required step, and there is no doubt whatsoever that in due course he will take that action.
The issue is of much greater scope than the opposition seems willing to indicate. Social security in Canada, after twenty years of Liberal rule, has shown itself to be a piece of patchwork with large gaps between the patches that were added whenever political need and expediency demanded. The last patch that was added was the hospitalization insurance. Even unemployment insurance is based on a plan which was established in England in 1920 and later discarded. Health and welfare is now costing Canadians about $5 million a day, and at this time, we are spending in a month what in 1930 or thereabout we used to spend in a whole year.
The true problems to be solved are these: where do we go from here, and where shall we stop with regard to social security? Should we revise our whole scheme so as to set up a comprehensive program integrated to the needs of our day? How can we go on patching gaps with political expediency
Old Age Pensions
as the opposition now suggests for purely political ends, making use of our aged citizens, widows and orphans?
As a matter of fact, in Canada we are still far behind in the field of social security as compared to many other nations in the world. We have hospitalization insurance, and medical insurance for the needy. We have old age pensions and widows' pensions. We have limited unemployment insurance, family allowances and a pension for the disabled. On the other hand, we have no maternity benefits; no complete health insurance, nor death benefits.
From British Columbia to Newfoundland, Canadians are living in distress through no fault of their own, and many among them are not among the unemployed. Some families have no bread because the father is ill and receives no salary. The worker who suffers some injury while at work receives compensation; but who will help the farmer who breaks his arm, for instance? Would there not be a number of disabled people who might earn their living, if we had a national rehabilitation program, in Canada?
Mr. Speaker, at its annual meeting on June 2, 1958, the Canadian Welfare Council set up a social security program for Canada. At the beginning of the brief it was stated that there was:
-a great complexity of financial and social questions inherent in any social security program. Now, those difficulties, ones that are encountered in any government system, are increased by reason of issues peculiar to Canada's federal system, where the central government, the provincial governments and the municipalities must, in varying degrees, assume responsibility in the field of social security.
Furthermore, the council is aware that, because of the lack of research, Canada does not have adequate statistical data on social security and, consequently, our knowledge in this connection is incomplete. Now, adequate information and serious research are indispensable not only for the development of a good social security program but also for its sound implementation.
The council believes that the various origins of several of our social security measures, the various circumstances which have given rise to them, the various motives which are at their basis, are the cause of most of their defects, not to mention the difficulties and misunderstandings caused by the sharing of jurisdiction between the various governments concerned. We could substantially improve the social security program of Canadians if we took the proper steps to make it a more rational and better co-ordinated organization, without necessarily having to modify its main elements drastically. Besides, such is the purpose of several of the recommendations included in this brief.
Finally, the council shares with many Canadians the interest they take in social security contrib-butory systems, such as those which are now in force in the United States and in some other countries. Nevertheless-

Old Age Pensions
I am still quoting from the report.
-the addition of this new feature, that is to say contribution to our present social security program, cannot be done, in our opinion, without first carefully considering all consequences necessarily involved.
We must consider several factors; and the question is much more complex than seems to be indicated. We must take into account several factors before talking about a social security program and before changing its elements.
And, on the basis of the same brief, Mr. Speaker, I would point out some of the questions the Canadian social welfare council pointed out as fundamental principles which should be taken into account in considering any changes in the social security program now existing in Canada.
First of all, there is this difficulty resulting from the fluctuations in the purchasing power of the dollar; and any measure adopted in the field of social security, in connection with the amount of pension, is related to that fluctuation of the purchasing power of our dollar. Furthermore, any longterm measure will inevitably have that fundamental defect. There is the further fact that, in providing a social security plan for all the employed and all the unemployed, it must be remembered that the national product depends on private initiative and that, in any such social security plan, care must always be taken to retain an incentive to private initiative and to promote a national productivity. Moreover:
One of the basic objectives of a security plan must be to protect and help the family by taking adequate means to protect it against the social risks inherent in the living conditions created by modern industrial society.
Any social security program must also be aimed, above all, at maintaining the working capacity of all persons able to work; or again, it should help them recover their working ability and become self-sufficient. Furthermore, it should promote the development of the personal resources of the handicapped, and enable them to accept gainful employment.
A minimum guaranteed income should be set, and no one should be allowed to receive an income lower than the set minimum. Any social security measure involving a means test should provide social benefits to such an extent that, added to the recipient's other resources, they would ensure a minimum standard of living and of health. On the other hand, benefits based on statutory measures of general application should not, if added to the other resources of the recipient, provide the latter with an average living standard higher than the national per capita level of consumer expenditure.
According to times and places, opinions will vary as to what constitutes an acceptable standard of living. As a result, income security measures should be revised and adjusted so as to remain in harmony with current conditions.

Much greater recognition must be given than at present to the fact that poor health is a serious threat to the maintenance of an adequate income. Therefore, any measure designed to protect the individual against indirect or direct costs resulting from sickness, for instance in the form of lost pay or medical expenses, should be included in an allinclusive social security program.
It therefore follows, Mr. Speaker, that under present conditions, any social security measure is part of a whole in which all factors are interrelated.
It must be admitted that, after 20 years of Liberal administration, we have reached the point where we have to recognize that under our present social security system, legislation passed until now have weaknesses. Therefore, emergency action should be taken to correct those irregularities and weaknesses.
Appropriate procedures should be carefully looked into in order to set up social security benefits through allowances and welfare assistance, so as to provide adequately for the financial hardships resulting from old age, unemployment, disability or death of the breadwinner and the support of children.
We should consider the possibility of developing a series of measures that would better co-ordinate what we have at present.
There is no doubt that all those measures require close co-operation between governments at the federal and provincial levels, and often at the municipal level.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the principles involved in the amendment. However, rather than vote in favour of principles, I prefer to vote for a positive provision to raise old age pensions, for I consider it preferable to wait for the completion of that serious study which the government has undertaken, taking into account all aspects of the social security problem.
The matter is too serious, Mr. Speaker, to be used merely as a political boomerang. I therefore urge my government to step up its study and to come forward as soon as possible with definite and well balanced proposals taking into consideration Canada's entire social complex. It is only after a responsible examination of those conditions and factors that we will be in a position to discuss the amount of the increase, and I sincerely hope that the figure will be as high, if not higher, than that suggested by the opposition without any serious study or basis.
Mr. Speaker, I have confidence in my government, and I am sure that older people in the constituency of St. James will be as well treated and protected as in 1958.

(Text):


James Stanley Speakman: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to say that I am opposed to the proposed amendment in its present form. I should like to outline the reasons for my opposition to this amendment. To begin with, I am suspicious of the motives of my hon. friends in the corner. It seems to me they must have had some premonition that the study the government has been giving the Clark report might result in some concrete legislation, and they feel they would like to get their foot in the door as the propounders of a measure for improvement of social security in Canada. I think of a very recent incident. A member of this group introduced a public bill for the amendment of a certain act after having heard the minister in charge of that department give her solemn assurance on many occasions during committee hearings that such an amendment would be made. The hon. gentleman then immediately proposed the amendment which is on record so that he will be given credit as the man who thought of this and his party will be thought of as the ones who are sincerely interested in the people concerned, while this government only follows them.
The proposed amendment says this: We will give each recipient of old age pensions in Canada an increase of $20 per month. This means the expenditure of approximately $200 million of the people's money because the money that this or any other government spends is the people's money. It will be taken from the wage earner, without regard to his circumstances, because the government has no private source of money. The amendment would result in the payment of $20 per month to the man who is presently in receipt of a very comfortable pension, who may have a private income, and it will be paid with no regard for need. I believe one of the best examples of this, perhaps, is our former prime minister who is now in receipt of old age pension. I am quite sure he needs it very badly. He will get $20 per month. A person who is in dire need will only get $20 per month as well.


Mr. Habel:: You have some of your own
members getting it.


James Stanley Speakman: I agree. I only cited this example.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Why pick on one man; pick on some of yours.
Old Age Pensions


James Stanley Speakman: I shall be glad to. I will include all former members of this house who are in comfortable circumstances and who are now receiving this pension but who do not really need it. This is what the proposed amendment says. We will give you $20 per month; you do not need it, but we will give it to you anyway; the people of Canada who have to provide it will not mind.


Harold Edward Winch: How about those who need it? Tell us about them, now.


James Stanley Speakman: I was just coming to that point. My hon. friend is a little impatient. Of course we have in Canada, as my friend from Athabasca mentioned, the Alberta scheme of supplementary pensions. This is based on need. We have, therefore, a record of our old age pensioners who are in need. I feel that a plan could be introduced, in conjunction with the provinces, under which this government or any other federal government could make available to the provinces additional sums so that these supplementary pensions could be increased by the amount of need.
My colleague from Athabasca failed to mention that in Alberta, on the basis of need, along with the issuance of a supplementary pension, there is included free medical care, free dental care, free optical and free hospital treatment. This is contrary to the situation, as I have been given to understand it, which exists in our neighbouring province where we now have this humanitarian socialist government, and have had for some 16 years.
In so far as the old age security pension is concerned, I should like to set the record straight for the benefit of my friends in the official opposition. They make great claims about having brought in all the measures which benefit Canadians in all walks of life. They take some credit for the $6 increase in the old age pension in 1957. I should like to remind these hon. gentlemen that this was a promise made immediately prior to the election which was to become effective on July 1 of that year. Between the time when this promise was made and the date on which it was to become effective the people of Canada had made up their minds that they had waited too long and it was therefore left to this government to provide the funds to carry out the promises made by those gentlemen who sat waiting for 22 years.

Old Age Pensions
I should like to say further that on top of the 15 per cent increase which this government gave after its predecessors had promised it in 1957, a further 19.5 per cent increase was made to bring the pension to its present level of $55 per month. The present amendment, of course, proposes a 36.3 per cent increase which is to be given regardless of need. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it can be said in all honesty that this government has shown its interest in the welfare of Canadians in all walks of life. As a member of the party which forms the government today, I am not ashamed of what this government has done.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) made a great outcry about the promises which were made on the hustings by those members who now sit on the back benches in support of the government. I should like to tell this hon. member that I did not campaign in either of the elections on promises. I campaigned on the fact that we have a Canadian leading our party whose interest in Canadians and in the country is genuine and sincere. It was my pride to win in the 1958 election on the basis of what had been accomplished in the few short months from June 10, 1957.


William Moore Benidickson: May I ask my hon. friend, for whom I have very great respect, a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith).


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, may I not ask the member a question?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I cannot see the hon. member where he is.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I understand that earlier today the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) said that it was unfortunate that I, as minister of the Department of National Health and Welfare, could not be in the house to hear the discussion. I must apologize for being absent on business. I can only repeat that it is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) are not in the house this evening.
As the house well knows, this is simply a supply motion. In my estimation it is too bad that it should have developed into a want of confidence motion. All social security measures are of concern to all of us. They are not the special prerogative of any one party

in the house or of any one individual member. They are the concern of all of us. But let us not forget that there is no one to whom they are of more concern than the individual who may find himself in straitened circumstances or possibly getting up in years and not being in possession of all the wherewithal with which to get by in this world.
I cannot say how much I regret-and I must use this word

the irresponsibility shown by both opposition parties in bringing forward both these amendments as they have done. I understand it has been indicated that the Liberals are going to vote against the C.C.F. main amendment and that the C.C.F. are going to vote against the Liberals subamendment. To me that indicates that they are simply vying with each other in playing upon the sympathies of those elderly people who through no fault of their own find themselves in difficult circumstances. I should like to read the Liberal subamendment, Mr. Speaker. It reads as follows:
In the opinion of this house the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation to provide in co-operation with the provinces, for increases in the old age pensions to meet special hardships endured by the recipients of old age security and old age assistance; to extend old age assistance to unmarried women and widows at 60 years of age; for the vesting of benefits in industrial pensions plans; and for a national contributory pension scheme, co-ordinated with existing provisions for retirement and old age security based on federal government contributions, as well as on contributions of employees, employers and self-employed.
This indicates to me, from the way in which it starts off, that it is simply a desire to load the provinces with further responsibility. I feel that it also indicates a certain amount of ignorance of the present situation. It says "to extend old age assistance to unmarried women and widows at 60 years of age". This can be done at the present time under unemployment assistance. There is a phrase "for the vesting of benefits in industrial pensions plans". I should just like to reiterate what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) said on May 24, 1960, as reported at page 4207 of Hansard:
The fact is that parliament has no jurisdiction to provide for vesting of pension rights.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the minister would be out of order in quoting from other debates in this session.


Jay Waldo Monteith: May I put it in this way, Mr. Speaker? I think the Minister of Finance at that time indicated the legal position of the government so far as the vesting of rights is concerned.
I would suggest that the latter part of the subamendment is an effort to try to embarrass the government in those matters concerning the Clark report. I am going to have

quite a bit to say about the Clark report later, and I will deal with it at that time.
I feel that the record speaks for itself as to what this government has done within the short space of two years and nine months. In the field of old age security it has increased the benefits from $46 to $55 a month. It has reduced the residence requirement from 20 years to 10 years. It has increased the periods of temporary absence allowed for beneficiaries leaving the country for visits; and an amendment received royal assent, I believe it was on July 7, to make provision for pensions to be paid outside of the country. These legislative changes in my opinion afford much more generous treatment and protection than the pensioners had under the previous administration and along with the consideration being given to the Clark report clearly indicate our desire to be as helpful as possible to our senior citizens in the matter of old age pensions.
These accomplishments, as I stated in my last paragraph, have been accomplished in the two years and nine months since the October session started in the fall of 1957. We have also provided for increases in old age assistance and assistance to the blind and disabled. We removed the 45 per cent threshold on unemployment assistance which was ridiculous at that time and is now applicable in every province in Canada. We made it possible for hospital insurance to come into effect earlier than it would have come into effect otherwise. We have doubled or approximately doubled hospital construction grants.
I should just like to outline briefly the situation in connection with hospital construction grants. In May, 1948 these grants were instituted by the previous administration in the health grants schedule. In that schedule of health grants hospital construction was included, as I say. In 1953 there was a 50 per cent reduction in the hospital construction grants. I am going to admit that three other new grants were added at that time, namely the laboratory and radiological services grant, the medical rehabilitation grant and the child and maternity health grant. But nevertheless, the hospital construction grant was cut in half.
On January 1, 1958 this government, in order to assist in accelerating the hospital program, doubled from $6.7 million the construction grant and added to that doubling an amount of $4 million for major renovations of and alterations to obsolete hospitals. This was a recommended sphere of activity. I am sure that the hospitals and municipalities across the country have realized what a great assistance this additional grant has
Old Age Pensions
been. As I say, it was doubled from $6.7 million with an additional $4 million added for renovations and major alterations.
I might point out that the straight active bed or equivalent assistance was increased from $1,000 to $2,000. Chronic, mental and tubercular beds were increased from $1,500 to $2,000; nurses' beds from $500 to $750. Internes' beds were instituted as a new step and these were included at $750 per bed and of course the renovations were included.
I should now like to place a few figures on Hansard as I think they are extremely interesting. I will give the total of what they call income maintenance grants. The total grants for 1956-57 in the public accounts were $814,960,572. In the year 1957-58 it will be remembered that the previous administration had made effective as of July 1, 1957 a $6 increase in the old age security. Effective as of November 1, 1957, the present administration added an additional $9 per month by which it arrived at the present $55 per month figure. The total in 1957-58, sharing an increase by both the previous administration and for part of the year by the present administration, was $959,717,252.
I should like the house to be aware of the figure which is in the estimates book for the year 1960-61, namely $1,188,300,000. This is an increase over 1956-57, the last year before any increase by the former administration or the present one, of $373,339,428, and this does not include hospital insurance. In the present estimate this total is $167 million. This, by the way, is for hospital insurance which had been promised by the previous administration back in 1919 and finally brought in in the spring of 1957; and as I said earlier we made it possible to advance the date of hospital insurance benefits becoming available to Canadian citizens.
There have been proposals to raise the old age security rate. I would suggest that any proposal to raise the amount of the flat rate pension at this time would be premature and should wait until the relation of this pension to a graduated pension benefit can be taken into consideration. I would point out that under the existing legislation the federal government will spend this fiscal year $590 million on old age security and $31 million on old age assistance.
The proposal to increase the pension to $75 a month would cost at least $226 million additional for old age security and old age assistance making a total of $847 million. It would mean contributing to the old age security fund an increase by about one third the present taxes; that is, raising the earmarked taxes on personal income, corporate income and the sales tax to 4 per cent

Old Age Pensions
each as well as further grants from general revenue for the increased outlays on old age assistance. Surely it would be unwise to make such a move prior to a careful consideration being given to the role of the flat rate benefit in relation to a graded benefit. This is particularly so with a proposal involving such very large expenditures.
I think it is accepted that Canadians generally were pleased and satisfied with the figures for which this government increased the monthly old age security, making it effective November 1, 1958, namely $55. I would like to draw attention to appendix C on page 87 of the estimates committee report No. 3, in which there is a table setting out the consumer price index in 1949 equalling 100, the old age security payment in current value dollars and in constant dollars. In November, 1957 the consumer price index was 123.3; current value dollars, 55; constant dollars, 55. We come to February 1960 and the consumer price index had risen to 127.2; the current value dollars, 55; the constant dollars, taking into consideration the increase in the consumer price index from 123.3 to 127.2, had fallen from 55 to 53.31.
I cannot feel that this is the most serious drop in the world. I have every sympathy for anybody in these circumstances and the government has all these things under consideration. But I cannot feel that a drop from November, 1957, when this government raised the pension to $55, to a value of 53.31 in February, 1960 is the most serious drop in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention that I feel the hon. member for Essex East in speaking on this subamendment today must feel he is on rather slippery ground. I should like to point out what my illustrious predecessor said back in 1956 in the estimates committee, as reported on page 268 of the report. He is reported as saying:


Hon.   Mr. Martin@: ... If there is a need-and I have acknowledged that there is need in many cases *-we on the federal side have discharged our responsibility in a respectable way. If need still exists, then in the light of the assumption by the federal government of this tremendous proportion of the total burden, I say that it is not unfair to suggest that all of the criticism should not be levelled at the federal government. I am not suggesting that moneys paid by way of old age pensions and social security are adequate to take care of the full living expenses of an individual; but I think it would be generally agreed that there is no similar social security benefit anywhere that is intended to provide for full maintenance. These are grants toward assistance, grants toward maintenance, and I believe that if there is any need of providing relief in this particular at this time, I have properly suggested the quarters whence that relief might be provided.

Apparently he meant either the provinces or the municipalities, and this of course is borne out by the terms of the subamendment. Further he says:
Already there is a great deal of criticism and a suggestion that this is extravagant, that this is the welfare state, and things of that kind that I call sinister arguments. We cannot, obviously, do these things if we concentrate all our payments in one department of activity.
I think things have changed since then because it is obvious from the subamendment before us today that there is certainly a lack of serious approach to this subject if they at that time claimed to have a serious approach. These are very irresponsible and extravagant statements contained in the amendment.
I should like to point out some of the comparisons as far as supplementary allowances are concerned, and I think it would do well for the members of the group of this house who moved the original amendment to pay attention to these figures. In old age security -incidentally, there are no supplementary allowances in old age assistance in the province of Saskatchewan-there is a supplement of $2.50 to $10 per person on an income test.
In Ontario the old age security and old age allowances are dealt with in the same fashion. The municipalities provide for the individual concerned as they see fit and the province assists up to 80 per cent of the first $20 of that supplemental allowance. There is quite a difference between $20 and $2.50 to $10. In British Columbia the old age security and old age allowances are again dealt with in a similar fashion. There is a maximum of $24 per person on a means test. In Alberta the old age security and old age assistance are dealt with in the same fashion up to $15 per month on a means test. In Manitoba there is a scheme similar to that in Ontario where the municipality decides the amount to give to the individual and the province pays 80 per cent of whatever that happens to be.
Unfortunately I was unable to be present earlier in the day and I am not sure what transpired but I understand that the hon. member for Essex East indicated that I had contemptuously-I believe his word was "contemptuously" or some similar phraseology- refused to give replies to questions on the Clark report. This is nonsense. Questions concerning the Clark report have been dealt with at great length. I feel that I should repeat some of the statements I made about the Clark report in the estimates committee. I believe that they will be of benefit to those hon. members of this house who were not fortunate enough to be members of the estimates committee during its study of the estimates of the Department of National



[Stage Direction]
Health and Welfare. I also believe they will bring to light some of the quibbling that has been engaged in by the hon. member for Essex East concerning the Clark report.
At the outset I think it might be well to remind ourselves of the terms of reference provided to Dr. Clark in undertaking this study. According to order in council P.C.
1958-9/307 dated February 25, 1958 his task was set out as follows:
-to conduct an inquiry into facts relating to old age security systems in effect in Canada and the United States, with particular reference to those features of the old age and survivors insurance program in the United States which make it possible for higher benefits to be paid covering a wider range of contingencies at an earlier age than is provided under present (Canadian) legislation.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question. Was the inquirer to bring in a report within a certain period of time?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, we all know this old story. We have heard it many times. The Clark report consists of two volumes totalling 861 pages. I have both volumes here. I would venture to say that no hon. member of the opposition has read the full two volumes. I feel that this is an historic document which will be most valuable for all time to come concerning studies of this type which we are presently conducting in the department. I have no apologies to make for the thoroughness and completeness of this report.
I think it is significant that after a most exhaustive analysis of the United States and Canadian programs Dr. Clark comes to the conclusion, as stated in paragraph 905 of his report, that the 1950 recommendations of the joint parliamentary committee which led to the passage of the present Old Age Security Act were fundamentally sound. The problem, therefore, is one of deciding how best to build on what we now have. Nothing that Dr. Clark says would indicate that our present program is not reasonably good foundation for considering what improvements should be made in the future.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) expressed this same point of view in announcing initiation of the study when he said, as reported at page 3233 of Hansard of January 13, 1958:
With these facts before us we have decided that further detailed investigation and inquiry should be made-to produce the information which will enable us to determine whether a similar system-
That is, the United States O.A.S.I. I continue:

or some modification of it could be fitted or adapted to Canadian requirements-
Old Age Pensions
I should like to stress the next words used by the Prime Minister on that occasion:
-in addition, of course-and I should like to emphasize this point-to our present system. I should like to make it clear that we have no thought of weakening in any way our present provisions.
A particularly valuable aspect of the report is the light it throws on the Canadian program as compared with that in operation in the United States. Dr. Clark indicates quite clearly that in certain respects the United States system is superior to the Canadian. He analyses the two schemes at great length showing why the United States system is able to provide more generous benefits and singling out the specific areas in which it is more advantageous. He also pinpoints areas in which the balance between the two is more open to argument.
Most important of all, in paragraphs 1352 and 2041 of his report he draws attention to a finding by the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects to the effect that the Canadian level of per capita income is some 30 per cent below that of the United States. Dr. Clark draws from this important statement a very clear conclusion with regard to comparative pension levels in the two countries.
The United States old age, disability and survivors insurance program, as Dr. Clark points out, is currently based on 3 per cent contributions from both employers and employees amounting to a total of 6 per cent of payroll. This is intended to rise by 1969 to 9 per cent of payroll. If we accept the fact that the average per capita income of Canadians-including those in their active working years-is 30 per cent below that in the United States, the question that presents itself is this. How can we expect, other than by establishing contribution rates that are proportionately higher, to achieve a level of pension benefits to the United States level?
It would seem, on the face of it, that if our per capita income is 30 per cent lower than that of the United States, then the same contribution rate levied in Canada would inevitably produce a level of benefits that is correspondingly lower than in the United States. If this is so, then one of the questions we should ask ourselves in Canada is whether or not we are prepared to pay contribution rates which are proportionately higher than those levied in the United States on incomes which are 30 per cent lower in order to achieve parity with the United States system.
Another point the Clark report brings out is that the United States system is based on graduated benefit levels while the Canadian employs a flat rate benefit. Although in the upper income levels, the United States system


William Moore Benidickson: But in Canada it is only on the net profit after taxes.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is right. I think we must recognize, therefore, that the imposition of a payroll tax for financing a contributory pension system would constitute a direct addition to production costs and might well have important consequences, particularly for marginal industries. It would also impose a relatively greater burden on those industries where labour constitutes a large portion of production costs as contrasted with other types of industry where automation or the nature of the operation itself requires a relatively small labour component. For example, retail stores and construction companies where labour costs are high would be affected much more by payroll taxes than pulp and paper companies or distilleries where labour costs constitute a much smaller item in the production budget.
Finally, Dr. Clark goes into the very important question of private industrial pension plans which have become an increasingly important element in the picture. Perhaps it is fair to state that when the Canadian scheme was adopted in 1950 it was hoped that industrial employers would build, on top of the flat benefit, supplemental pension provisions for their employees, or that individuals would make their own provisions through government annuities and so on. Thus by building this additional arrangement on the floor provided by the government scheme it would be possible to build a second deck which would give individuals a retirement income bearing a relationship to their previous earnings.
To some extent this development has taken place. Dr. Clark points out that there has been an impressive growth in private pension plans covering increasingly large numbers of wage and salary workers in Canada. A pertinent question is, what would happen to these existing provisions if the government should move into the picture with some supplementary program? Do we end up with a triple deck system for those urban and industrial workers, particularly in highly organized sections of the labour force, who have already been able to work out with their employers pensions supplemental to the basic government pension? Do we allow contracting out which will be permitted under the new British scheme though not under O.A.S.I. in the United States? Or do we scrap these private plans and replace them by a public supplemental scheme? If we do the latter, are we really any farther ahead? If we do not, how do we relate a graduated

Old Age Pensions
system under a new government scheme to the graduated system which private plans have already provided to some extent?
One of the outstanding weaknesses of present industrial pension plans is, of course, that they do not provide transferability of pension rights from one employer to another. This raises the whole question of portable pensions, a subject in which I am happy to note that the government of Ontario has recently taken a very active interest. Indeed, a special committee has been appointed to look into the matter and this seems to me at least to be a most worth-while undertaking.
These, then, are some of the important issues raised by the Clark report which various federal departments and agencies have been examining in the past 18 months. All have to be thought through and resolved before any final decisions can be made. The Clark report has provided a very useful background on the approach followed in the United States in relation to the possibility of modifications in the program and, along with material on the programs in other countries such as the United Kingdom and Sweden, is being studied by a departmental committee.
It is surely obvious, Mr. Speaker, that we must not make decisions on any hasty, ill-considered basis because the cost implications are very great. In all frankness, I am not in a position to say at the present time that we have reached solutions to all of these questions. But the people of Canada can rest assured that this extremely vital problem is being given the urgent consideration and study which it so clearly merits.
I think I have dealt with the Clark report at some length. I have pointed out the increase over the term that this government has been in office in social benefits of all kinds, unemployment assistance, old age security, old age assistance, disability allowances, blind allowances, the bringing into early fruition of the hospital insurance scheme and hospital construction grants, and I repeat: Let the record speak for itself. I claim that no government has ever done more in the welfare field in Canada than we have in the two years and nine months since October of 1957. We are not satisfied now. We are giving continuous study to all of these problems. Despite the great steps we have taken, we will endeavour to continue to improve the lot of those unfortunate and aged people in need of assistance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to say to the minister that I regret not being here when he began his speech.
I was attending the committee on the bill of rights in another place in this building, and

I had not anticipated that the minister would be speaking. Otherwise I certainly would have been here at the outset. Of course, I suppose this situation is a reflection of the way in which the affairs of the house have been handled by the government during this session. Important legislation has been left until the very last minute, the bill of rights and the combines legislation, the committee on broadcasting and other committees, all of which has made it necessary for members to display their ability ambidextrously to be in many places at one time. It clearly is a reflection on the way in which our affairs have been handled in this house by the government which has full control of the business of the house. It may seriously be doubted whether it is possible for us to give the kind of consideration to important measures that should be given, in view of these simultaneous meetings, these preoccupations that require hon. members of this house to direct their attentions not only to matters being considered in this chamber but to important matters being seriously considered in the committees of the house. I am sure that the reference that was made today to the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) was not made in a complaining sense. There was, of course, the implication that the minister undoubtedly was away on business that was important to him in his official capacity.
We have listened tonight to a careful and studied statement by the minister on the accomplishments of the government since it came into office in June, 1957 in the field of health and welfare. The minister concluded his speech by saying that never in Canadian history had so much been done by a government in this field.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With that remark, the minister naturally evoked very vigorous applause on the part of those sitting behind the ministry, particularly at a time when they must have realized how inaccurate that statement really was.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I know the hon. member would not want to leave a misunderstanding. I said in the two years and nine months commencing with the October session in 1957.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister is right. I was only referring to the time that hon. gentlemen have been in office. This time is not as long as perhaps some hon.

members think, but I assure my hon. friends, that to the Canadian people, it now appears to be a very long time.
What are the facts with regard to the accomplishments of the administration in this field? The government has not introduced one single bit of legislation that has not been an amendment to basic acts which were previously introduced by governments under Mr. Mackenzie King and Mr. St. Laurent; that is the fact. Every amendment brought forward by the present administration was to an act in the field of health and social welfare introduced by these two former administrations.


James Stanley Speakman: But what an improvement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says, "What an improvement." Let us examine the extent to which that statement is warranted by the facts. Old age security was introduced in this house in 1951 following a report made by an all-party committee, as a result of which the government of the day recommended to this house a program to provide for a universal system of old age security which eliminated the means test. This was the first act of its kind enacted by any government in the world.
However, this act had been preceded by the introduction in 1925 of the first old age pensions act, an act that did not become law because it was vetoed in the other place by a chamber which, at that time, was in its majority composed of members who supported the Conservative party.


An hon. Member:: Who changed that?


Murdo William Martin: The people of Canada changed that when in the following election they returned the government of Mackenzie King. One of the reasons for the return of that government was a protest against the action taken by the Conservative majority in the other place.
From 1926 onward there were various refinements made in the old age pensions act. In 1947 the old age pension stood at $20, and it was successively increased from $20 to $30; from $30 to $40; and from $40 to $46. During that time the income ceilings were extended. During that time the Old Age Assistance Act was amended in proportion to the increases in the basic grant and in the income ceilings provided for in the original old age pensions act.
In addition to that blindness allowances were provided, and provided by the same Liberal government that brought forward the original old age pensions act which later became the old age security universal system that now extends benefits to somewhat between 900,000 and 1,000,000 people in this
Old Age Pensions
country. In addition to that, disability pensions were introduced, not before an election but in the first session after the election of 1948, by the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. Hon. gentlemen say that these measures were brought forward as a means of capturing public support. I merely mention again that the disability pensions act was introduced by a Liberal government in the first session of the parliament that was assembled immediately after the general election.
Family allowances were introduced in 1945. Those of us who were members of this house then will not forget the circumstances that attended the introduction of the resolution by the then prime minister, Mr. King. He announced that the measure could not be regarded as an election enticement because of the date when that particular measure was to be proclaimed. Those of us who sat on that side of the house will not forget the actions of the members of the Conservative party with regard to the introduction of family allowances. At first there were remonstrances. In the background there was the statement of the premier of Ontario, who later became leader of the Conservative party in this country as well as leader of the opposition, and who referred to the family allowance act as a bribe offered to a particular section of the people of Canada. Basically this was the attitude taken by hon. members opposite with regard to the family allowance act.


William Moore Benidickson: And Messrs. Graydon and Green said the same thing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon. friend, the member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) points out, the leader in the house at that time, Mr. Bracken, and Mr. Graydon, did express the view that this was a costly measure; that it was one that did not seem to reside within the competence of the federal government, and that it was a doubtful measure. It is true that when the measure went to a vote-
Mr. Pallet!: It was a unanimous vote.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was not a
unanimous vote. It is true that when the measure went to a vote some of those hon. gentlemen of the Conservative party, realizing how popular a measure this was, what a valuable addition to the social program it was designed to be, took cover and did give support.
It was not unanimous support, however. The hon. member for Parkdale at that time, Dr. Bruce, stood here like Horatio at the bridge and said it would be over his dead body that this measure would pass. It is in

Old Age Pensions
this context that the Minister of National Health and Welfare had the temerity tonight in his statement to say that new concepts of social security have been developed since he became Minister of National Health and Welfare, and since this government came into office, new concepts involving the repudiation of opposition of family allowances.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend over there who grunts obviously does not like what I have said. But the people of Canada grunted also and that is why they did not accept hon. gentlemen opposite as members who were competent in the public judgment at that time to be regarded as being entitled to carry on the affairs of government in this nation. But we did not stop there. The veterans charter, which extends important social benefits to a particular and important segment of our population, was introduced by the man who was minister of pensions and national health, namely the late Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie, a member of the King government.
Then we come, of course, to the hospital insurance measure. We think of the criticism in Conservative newspapers all over this country, long before the measure finally became law. We think of the argument that was made that we were setting up here in Canada the welfare state; that we were bankrupting the nation because of this measure; that we were interfering with the traditional doctor and patient relationship; that we were interfering with the rights of a free society to conduct its own affairs under the aegis of freedom. Now we have hon. gentlemen opposite, who took the benefit of all this criticism and who subscribed to much of it, taking credit for the hospital insurance act.
The hospital insurance act was introduced in this house by a Liberal government in 1956. It became law at a time when Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, than whom there were few greater prime ministers, had this particular measure introduced by way of an announcement that he made in this house at a time when the same announcement was being made to the provinces in another part of this building, where they had assembled for the purpose of learning the details of the federal proposal.
Hospital insurance which is now accepted in nine provinces is regarded by the great majority of the Canadian people as a deserving measure. It stands as a monument to the concern and the interest of the Liberal party in the matter of health and social welfare.


William Moore Benidickson: The late Mr. Sauve said that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon. friend reminds me, Mr. Sauve said that. The late Mr. Duplessis, in criticizing the measure, did not for one moment suggest that the day would ever come when members of the Conservative party would readily accept the principle of hospital insurance. It is significant now that within a few days only of his going into office the present premier of Quebec-


An hon. Member:: Who is he?


Paul Joseph James Martin: His name will be well known. His name is Mr. Jean Lesage, a man whom I think the hon. member and others will know for a long time. I am sure he will be remembered long after some other provincial premiers in that particular province have been forgotten. What did Mr. Lesage do? He was in office less than a week when he let the Minister of National Health and Welfare or his officials know that he was ready


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know that hon. gentlemen opposite do not like what I am saying because this reflects again that Liberalism in Canada, growingly triumphant in this house, is also definitely triumphant and increasingly so in additional provinces of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Lesage did not wait as long as did the premier of Nova Scotia, the premier of New Brunswick or the premier of one other province or maybe two provinces. He acted right away. He called in the federal officials. Mr. Duplessis had set up a commission, at a cost of $1 million, to investigate whether the province of Quebec should join with the other provinces in this hospital insurance scheme. Mr. Lesage said, Let us do away with that commission; we have the facts now; we do not need to spend public money in determining what we already know; let us take steps now so that we can implement hospital insurance in the province of Quebec by January 1, 1961.
In spite of this recital the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that his government has accomplished more in the field of social welfare than has any other government in the history of our country. I am not going to deny that the hon. member is entitled to resort to whatever comfort he can get out of his minimum achievements. That is his privilege. However, the record is clear. The record is this. The minister has

6549 moved in these matters only when this house and the people have compelled such motion to take place. We have an example of that, of course, in the studious care that my hon. friend is giving to the Clark report.


William Heward Grafftey: Have you read it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend asks whether I have read it. Yes, I have read it and I would invite the young hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), whose haircut-


William Heward Grafftey: Don't smile.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was going to make a personal reference, Mr. Speaker, but that would be improper.


William Moore Benidickson: It shows that the hon. member is always observant.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would ask the hon. gentleman to read that report. As a matter of fact, we have had tonight a clear demonstration that the Minister of National Health and Welfare knows what is in that report.


An hon. Member:: Are you surprised?


Paul Joseph James Martin: He has read to us tonight in extenso a long statement, which I presume to be the statement made in the estimates committee, or a statement in any event that reveals clearly that he has an appreciation of the main lines of the Clark report. He therefore has no excuse for delaying the implementation of the report, having regard to his obvious and detailed knowledge of this subject, as recommended and outlined by Dr. Clark. But because the hon. gentleman knows so much about the report, and being now convinced that as a result of his studies he understands it, I now call upon him to do what the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) of Canada implied would be done when in 1958 he announced solemnly, with all of the applause that he could muster from his supporters, that this government, bent on doing something for our senior citizens, was going to adopt the old age survivors system in operation in the United States.
To that end he said that he had asked Professor Huson of the University of Western Ontario to make an assessment of the facts of this situation in so far as they were known in the United States. He said, in effect, so intent am I on seeing that this report is implemented that I have told Professor Huson that the report he is to make must be accomplished within a period of four months. That announcement was made in this house in the month of January, 1958. The Prime Minister then went through the length and the breadth of this country, talking about this study and talking about increased benefits, the higher benefits in certain categories paid
Old Age Pensions
to citizens of the United States under their system as compared to the benefits paid to Canadians under our universal system. What happened? When Professor Huson saw what the Prime Minister had said, namely that the report had to be completed in four months, he said he would not undertake a responsibility of that kind within the prescribed period.
But the Prime Minister is not a man who is ever to be found wanting. He is always capable of dealing with any situation. At once he went to another university, and this time he picked Dr. Clark of the University of Western Ontario. He was going to make this report, and it was to be made in the same period. There would not be any delay. The government wanted the report so that it could implement in Canada, through the instrumentality of this house, the old age survival system which now prevails in the United States. That was the undertaking of the government of which the Minister of National Health and Welfare is a member.
Dr. Clark did not complete his report in four months. The elections of 1958 took place, and we came back to this house and asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare if Dr. Clark's report was ready. "No, the report is not ready". On six different occasions in that session, the Minister of National Health and Welfare was asked the same question, and at every point we were told the report was not ready.
Then one day Dr. Clark came into the city and announced to the press that his job had been done. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, however, told us the next day that he did not have a copy of the report, but that just as soon as he could get the report, he would make it known to the house-


Jay Waldo Monteith: I rise on a point of order. I wish the hon. member would indicate just when this announcement was made to the press and when I made the statement, because I do not think it is right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister says he does not think it right.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Not in the context in which you have used it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then I will show him that it is right. We went on in 1958 and finished the session, and then we came back in 1959, and put the same question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare: Has he yet received the Clark report? "Yes, the government is studying the report." Shortly thereafter another question was put: Has the minister yet read the report? The minister was in the process of reading

Old Age Pensions
the report. That was encouraging at any rate, notwithstanding that the time schedule outlined by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) had not been met. Then as we went on further into the session other questions were put: Has the minister now completed his study? Yes, he had read the report, and he hoped to be able to discuss it with his colleagues before too long.
Then we came to this session and at the beginning of the session we asked him if the government had considered the report. The minister replied, and it became a stock reply, "This matter is receiving careful study". Then on one occasion the minister was gracious enough to say not only was it receiving careful study but that he wanted me particularly to know that it was receiving very, very careful study. That was in February of this year. We have asked the minister repeatedly what progress has been made with these scholastic activities of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Every time we have received the answer "I am studying this matter".
Then we had a committee on estimates. The minister came before that committee, and in a carefully prepared statement, he again revealed he had knowledge of the contents of the report. Yes, he had studied the report. Had the government yet made its decision as to whether or not anything was going to be done? He replied: The hon. gentleman from Essex East should know government policy will be announced in due course at the appropriate time, in the appropriate place. Then the estimates committee concluded its work, but we were no further ahead as to whether this great knowledge, which the studious Minister of National Health and Welfare had displayed, had percolated through to the benches and seats of his colleagues, particularly to that of the Prime Minister who started this whole business, about which there has been procrastination, delay and uncertainty of decision culminating in the period which now confronts us.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has now displayed, without any shadow of doubt, as I have said-Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are convinced of that-that he knows what is in this report. I presume not only does he know what is in the report, but so also do his colleagues, particularly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) who will have to participate in this measure, as Minister of Finance, if the scheme is to be implemented.
There is now before us tonight a proposal put forward by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) that the pensions should be increased. It has been indicated that if this

particular report were implemented some of the demands or request made in this amendment could be met. I say to the minister, after a delay of 18 months, before which we were given by the Prime Minister the clear assurance that this matter would take but a limited time, following which there would be action by this government, that we are now entitled to ask him, as minister in a government which he says has done so much for social welfare: What is your policy now that you have obviously studied this report so carefully and so thoroughly?
The hon. minister said today that, when he was not here he understood that I had said he had acted contemptuously. I will tell my hon. friend what I said. I said that a government which had procrastinated in a matter like this, the Prime Minister having given the assurance he did, having had all this time to study the matter, is in contempt of parliament when it refuses to state its policy. That is what I said and I repeat it again.


Mr.   Morion@: What did you do about the hospital scheme?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am glad you mentioned that. The hon. member knows the hospital insurance scheme in Canada depended on the acceptance of the provinces, and just as quickly as the provinces indicated their willingness there was not the slightest delay on the part of the Liberal government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not expect hon. gentlemen to like this, and to applaud what I am saying; but I do expect them, and I say this to them in the friendliest way, to allow me at least to make my argument because I have just come from the atmosphere of freedom, where we were discussing the Prime Minister's bill of rights.
The minister tonight has given us arguments for adoption of this system and he has given us arguments against it. He has put the pros and cons before this house succinctly this evening. I assume those facts are now before the government. The minister can tell me now whether this matter has been discussed in cabinet. Has he discussed this matter with the Prime Minister?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member knows better than ask a question like that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will ask the hon. minister, has this matter been discussed by the cabinet or is this matter going to be studied only by the minister? Is the dust to gather, in the Department of National Health and Welfare, on these documents, or is it

some day to be exposed for the scrutiny of the government as a whole? That surely is not asking too much. I am not asking the minister to tell us the nature of his discussion. I am certainly not asking him to tell us how the Minister of Finance would raise his hands in horror at the proposed expenditure which might be involved. But I am asking the minister, in the face of the assurance given by the Prime Minister, and in the face of the facts which I have adduced tonight, to tell parliament and the people of Canada whether he is for this system in the United States or not. If he does not reply, then we can only conclude that the government hopes to do with this measure exactly what it has done with the liaison committee of western farmers, and that is to ignore the entire subject.
The minister did not address himself to all the matters that are before the house. He said very little about the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin). The hon. gentleman has said nothing whatever about the proposals contained in the amendment introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. What does the minister think about this amendment? Perhaps the hon. gentleman has not had an opportunity of closely examining its contents. It provides, after deleting certain words, that certain words should be added to the amendment, to the effect that, in co-operation with the provinces, provision should be made for increases in the old age pensions to meet special hardships endured by the recipients of old age security and old age assistance. I am sure the minister will agree that there are many cases that are not adequately covered by the basic pension in the Old Age Security Act. Is the minister then in favour of co-operating with the provinces to provide for increases in pensions to meet these special situations? Is the minister ready to discuss with the provinces next July 25 their attitude as to the implementation of this particular proposal?
The Prime Minister told us today that the agenda of the conference was not one that would be imposed by the federal government on the provinces. That means that the latter have the right and the opportunity of placing on the agenda of that conference any matter which they regard to be of concern to them. Is this question going to be discussed? The minister said not a word about it.
The minister said nothing about the proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition that consideration should be given to this question. The hon. gentleman did not say that these things should be done. In order to bring himself within our procedures, he proposed that consideration should be given 79951-0-413
Old Age Pensions
to the advisability of extending old age assistance to unmarried women and widows at 60 years of age. What is the government's policy with regard to this suggestion? If the minister says he has not had an opportunity of giving consideration to these points then, of course, we must await the opportunity until that consideration has been given. I hope it will not be as long as was taken to digest the Clark report. Surely we in this parliament are entitled to know what the government thinks of these various proposals.
What about the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition that consideration should be given to the vesting of benefits in industrial pension plans? The minister made only one mention of this, when he referred to the Clark report. He pointed out that in the United States, under their old age survivors' system, steps can be taken in part under that measure to provide for vesting. Is the government concerned about this problem? The minister said that the province of Ontario is concerned, but this is a matter that also concerns the federal government.
We proposed, finally, in the amendment introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, the principle embodied in the thoughts of the Prime Minister when he instructed Dr. Clark to formulate his report, namely that consideration should be given to the desirability of a national contributory pension scheme supplementing the existing universal old age pension plan, based on federal government contributions as well as on contributions of employees, employers and the self-employed.
That is an acceptance of the principle underlining the old age survivors' scheme, with this variation, that in that scheme no grant is made whatever by the United States federally or by state governments. In this proposal, for study, it is suggested that just as we provide contributions for unemployment insurance the state should make contributions toward this fully contributory scheme. We heard not a word from the Minister of National Health and Welfare about this amendment, and this on the part of a minister who said that the government of which he is a member has done more in this field than any other government.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) said today that it was a Liberal government that had caused the Supreme Court of Canada to examine the legislation introduced by Mr. Bennett in the dying days of that government in 1935. The hon. gentleman sought by that statement to indicate that between 1930 and 1935 basic social welfare legislation had been introduced by a Conservative government.


An hon. Member:: And it was.

Old Age Pensions


William Moore Benidickson: Tell us what it was?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is quite right, it was. It was also pointed out at the time that every single act introduced by that government was an act which would be regarded by the Supreme Court of Canada as outside the competence of parliament.
Mr. Mackenzie King, than whom no one has done more for social welfare in this country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Murdo William Martin: Some hon. gentlemen laugh. We paid honour to Mr. Mackenzie King today. We did so, not only because of what he did in the days of the second world war but because of his great humanitarian-ism, represented in the social welfare legislation that stands in his name and introduced during the long and successful period when he was the head of a Liberal government in this country.
Mr. King pointed out in 1935 that the Unemployment Insurance Act introduced by Mr. Bennett was so patently contrary to the constitution, that it could not sustain the rigours of the law. Within a few months the Supreme Court of Canada decided that that was the case. Then what did the Liberal government do? It called the provinces together. The government said it did not have the power under the constitution to impose contributions on the workers and employees, and explained that it would like that power so that it could give some security to the workers of this country. The provinces agreed-


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Five years later.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The provinces consented to transfer this power to a limited degree as a result of which we got a constitutional amendment-


Richard Albert Bell: Five years later.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was because of Mr. Duplessis.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I repeat, we got a constitutional amendment that enabled us to introduce in the dark days of the war-


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: They certainly were dark days for some of us.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -an act that continues to function and to be of such great value to the unemployed workers of this nation.


Richard Albert Bell: It took five years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Unemployment insurance was introduced in this house by the minister of labour of that day, Mr. Mc-Larty. Since that time that measure has taken

its place alongside these other social welfare acts, all of them attesting to the interest and concern of the Liberal party in the welfare of the masses of the people of this country, I affirm this by way of answer to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who said that the government of which he is a member has done so much to promote social welfare measures in this country. Where would we be today if-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.
(Translation):


Mr. Louis Fortin (Montmagny-L'Islet):: Mr. Speaker, when I listened to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), I naturally supposed that he had gone out and drawn new vigour from the atmosphere of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mackenzie King. I even thought, for a moment, that during the ceremony this afternoon at Laurier House, he had decided that at the next Liberal convention, he would stand as candidate for his party's leadership. He proved tonight that he is quite ready to become leader of the opposition for 20 years to come. He can count on us to keep him in his seat for at least 20 years.
The member for Essex East started off by complaining. He considers himself overworked. He mentioned important committees that require, as he said, the ability and talent of members. He mentioned among others the committee on broadcasting.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to say that if the committee on broadcasting could not sit this afternoon, it is because only one Liberal member was present-


An hon. Member:: Where were the Conservatives? The member for Pontiac-Temis-camingue (Mr. Martineau) was not there either.


Louis Fortin: -and so we did not have a quorum. When the member for Essex East complains that it is impossible for him to sit on two or three committees at the same time and also be present in the house, he could perhaps suggest to those who will choose him as leader of the party to provide him with assistants who would sit on those committees.
At a given moment, he fulfilled a sacred duty. He recalled, in a way, the painful and bumpy memory of a former cabinet minister who, when he found himself thrust into the opposition by the will of the people, refused to sit in the shadow of the member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) who had stolen his place as second in command in the Liberal

party. Instead of sitting in the house in the shadow of the member for Laurier, the former-
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. There are rules in this house about the use of the word "theft" and I am quite surprised that the hon. member who is now speaking would use words of that nature, in the manner in which they were used, as an attack not only upon a person who is outside this house but also upon the hon. member for Laurier and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to direct him to modify his language and change the word "theft" to another word.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member for Laurier please give me the words of which he complains?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I shall be pleased to do so. In his statement a moment ago the hon. member said that I had stolen the place of a former hon. member who was a cabinet minister in the previous administration and that, I think, is clearly contrary to the rules. The word "theft" used in those circumstances is certainly unparliamentary and I ask Your Honour to direct that it be stricken from the record.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet has heard the hon. member for Laurier who has taken offence at the use of the word "stolen" or "theft", not in connection with property but in connection with a political place. Of course, the word in a certain context is unparliamentary. If it has given offence to the hon. member I shall give an opportunity to the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet to modify his statement.
(Translation):


Louis Fortin: Mr. Speaker, what struck me most was to find-to my great satisfaction- that the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) said that he was surprised at my using a rather strong word. It is an indication of his friendship for me. I am therefore ready to admit that the word is perhaps a little strong, and I shall use another one to replace it by saying: The place he took without permission.
The hon. member for Essex East felt the need to impress us-


An hon. Member:: Rose to the compliment-


Louis Fortin: May I insist, Mr. Speaker, because he spoke abundantly without our objecting in any way, stating that, after being a week in power, the former federal minister had abolished some commission and had immediately accepted the hospitalization insurance plan.
79951-0-413J
Old Age Pensions
I say to the hon. member for Essex East, who is obviously not too well informed on problems relating to the province of Quebec- his sole informant being the hon. member for Laurier-that it is only accidentally that the provincial hospitalization insurance commission was abolished because, when the Hon. Mr. Lesage took over, he immediately took a broom and began a general sweeping up, chucking everybody out, including the commission. That is perhaps the reason why he did not hesitate to accept the hospitalization insurance plan, and we shall see the results, and whether the people will be satisfied.
The hon. member for Essex East made a magnificent political speech. Obviously he will get the headlines he was after. But I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that there were, in his statement, a few inaccuracies which I ask leave to point out.
He, first of all, lengthily related the background of social security legislation in Canada. He also spoke at length on the increases of $20, $30 and $40 which were granted with regard to the old age pension plan. However, he did not specify that this increase of $20 was in respect of a period of 22 years. He also forgot to mention that, within two years, this government had raised the old age pensions by $9.
In proportion, we should say that it takes a Liberal government three times longer to pass valuable and beneficial legislation than it does a Conservative government.
He also dealt with the hospitalization insurance scheme. However, he forgot to tell us that, in 1919-and I do not pretend to remember Mr. King's statement very well -however, history tells us that, as far back as 1919, Mr. Mackenzie King had promised a hospitalization insurance scheme. And this time the Liberal party waited 37 years before enforcing the plan Mr. Mackenzie King had promised a year before I was born.
It took the Liberal party 37 years to-
(Text):


Murdo William Martin: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has not yielded the floor. Unless he does, the hon. member who is rising has no right to interrupt.
(Translation):


Louis Fortin: I need only a few minutes more, perhaps five minutes.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it took 37 years for the Liberal party to introduce a plan conceived, devised and promised by the hon.

Old Age Pensions
Mackenzie King. And today we are told that he is the champion of all social security measures in Canada.
I suggest that, before we readily agree to the amendment, introduced by the C.C.F. party which proposes to raise the old age pension to $75, there are a lot of factors to be considered.
First we should ask ourselves on what basis the C.C.F. suggests the $75 figure. Why not $70 or $80? The first thought that comes to mind, of course, is that those people have read the representations which I understand were made by the C.C.L. in favour of such a measure, and thought that perhaps in view of the uncertain possibility that a political party might eventually be born in Canada, it might be advisable to make a bit of political hay now by introducing this motion to raise the old age security pension to $75 a month.
Mr. Speaker, the figure is rather arbitrary, but I think we might consider the proposal if there were a proper balance between the old age pension and family allowances.
I am one of those who believe that the government should take care of old people, because after all, they are the ones who shaped this country as it exists today. It is because of the work of those pioneers that we enjoy our present freedom and benefits. Therefore, I am one of those who believe that nothing will ever be too good for our senior citizens.
On the other hand, if we want to protect old people, it seems to me that at the same time, we should consider the problem of our families. On the basis of a quick calculation, it is said that in paying an old age pension of $55 a month, the federal government is providing a capital of $13,200 for the beneficiaries of such pensions. Now the C.C.F. suggestion that the pension be raised to $75 a month would mean that the federal government would be setting aside a capital of $18,000 in favour of our old people.
But what is being done for the young people? If we must protect our old people, and look after them, we must also look after our growing children and consider those who face a situation which is much more serious and difficult than the situation faced by people who have already reached a certain age. Yet a capital of only $1,440 a year is set aside for our young people.
If Canada's economic and financial position is such as to warrant that substantial

increase in the old age security pension, I think we should at the same time consider raising the rate of family allowances.
Mr. Speaker, in making this comparison, I hope my words will not be construed as a plea in favour of family allowances as against an increase in old age pensions. On the contrary, I repeat that, if our financial resources allow it, let us raise the old age pension sky high, but let us at the same time look after the problem of children; let us help the children by raising family allowances to a level more consistent with the present cost of living.
Mr. Speaker the amendment to the amendment put forward by the Liberals is of special significance in that it comes at the end of an election campaign. You will recall that in the last election campaign we were promised that additional benefits would be given our older people and our children. In other words, the one upon whom the hon. member for Essex East showered stirring and fulsome praise a moment ago, has suddenly turned into a Santa Claus. He made promises that he must now carry out and he knows he is unable to do so. What has he done? He came here to meet his friends in Ottawa, he asked them to introduce some measure which would commit the federal government to fulfil the promises they had made during the election campaign.


Mr. Dupuis:: That's childish.


Louis Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville says this is childish. I agree with him that, if he clearly understood what I said, it is because my reasoning is clear.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. One at a time, if you please.
(Translation):


Louis Fortin: This century, Mr. Speaker, can certainly be described as the century of social security. First of all, we were told that the great leaders (whose names were mentioned on this great day when an historic monument was unveiled) were the champions of social security measures I submit that they were compelled to follow the example of other countries. But they made a great fuss about family allowances in particular, because, in my opinion, that is what affected the population most. Besides, I would remind you that the first member who spoke about social security measures is not the one who was

referred to a moment ago, but the former member for the constituency of Saguenay (Mr. Frederic Dorion) a distinguished brother of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Noel Dorion.)


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, it was Mr. Blanchette.


Louis Fortin: And it was precisely to give in to the pressures exerted on the Liberal government at that time-who seemed to think for a moment that its ivory tower might collapse as it actually did in 1957-that the Liberal party agreed to pay certain gratuities in the form of family allowances.
Every time those people went into an election campaign, we had the impression that the level of social security measures would be raised and, in fact, it happened occasionally. They had made it a pet theme, and even in 1957, they promised that if the Liberal government were re-elected, some slight increase in family allowances would be granted and that the old age pension would be increased to $46. Well, at that time, the Conservative party without formally promising that, realized the necessity of giving increased consideration to our older citizens and the present Prime Minister then promised that if, he were elected he would raise their pensions. That is what happened, and in the space of two years, the Conservative party gave the older people of Canada much more than the Liberal party gave them in 20 years.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Eleven o'clock.


Murdo William Martin: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have called it eleven o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire from the house leader what we will be doing tomorrow and Thursday and Friday as well?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we will continue with the estimates of the Department of Public Works, followed by the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs and then the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I am not sure how many days will be taken for these three departments but that will be the order in which they will be called.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask another question? When will the government be introducing the estimates of the Department of Labour? The minister will remember that this morning the Leader of the Opposition asked for them tomorrow, and I understand now that there are three departments that are being called from now to the end of the week. When will the estimates of the Department of Labour be called?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member appreciates the difficulty in forecasting the amount of time the house will take on any subject.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why can we not have labour right away?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I suggest that it will depend on how far we get with the estimates of the Department of Public Works. It is difficult to set an exact day for any one department.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, July 20, 1960

[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Cathers.