1961-02-06

[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization-Mr. McBain.

Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the motion that the first report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, presented to the house on Wednesday, February 1, be now concurred in.


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: For
reasons which I set out on Friday in regard to a similar motion for concurrence in the report of the committee on banking and commerce, I desire to oppose this motion.
I do not propose to reiterate the reasons given on that occasion. I think it is sufficient if I have permission of the house to make reference to what was said in that debate, and to say that I still find myself opposed to the proposition that a committee chairman can come before the house and ask concurrence in a committee report which recommends that the committee should have leave to sit while the house is sitting, without at the same time giving the house any reasons why that particular committee needs such an extraordinary right.
As far as I know this particular committee has no special business indicated for its attention this session, and in the absence of any such circumstance I find myself opposed to the motion for concurrence; that is, opposed to paragraph 3 of the report. I note that in paragraph 2 a request is made to reduce the quorum of this particular committee from 20 to 10, again without any particular reasons being given, but I do not particularly raise that matter at this time.
I therefore move, seconded by my colleague the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier):
That the motion be amended by inserting the words "paragraphs 1 and 2 of" after the word "that" and before the word "the".
The motion would then read:
That paragraphs 1 and 2 of the first report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines be now concurred in
The significance of the amendment in this form is that the other parts of the committee's report would be concurred in, and if the amendment were carried it would merely mean that the paragraph having to do with the right of the committee to sit while the house is sitting would not be dealt with today and that matter would stand in suspension in so far as the house is concerned.


Mr. O. H. Phillips (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may be permitted to direct a question to the hon. member and ask if he is not aware that the motion for the committee to sit while the house is in session was seconded by his colleague the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai).


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take it that the hon. member is referring to what happened in the committee. I think it would be out of order to go behind the report which is before the house for consideration. Is the house ready for the question?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat the arguments which have been advanced over and over again throughout the years in this regard. Suffice it to say that all that is being asked by the committee is the right to sit. That does not mean that the committee would be asked to sit unless some matter of importance should arise.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister would permit a question. The hon. gentleman said that what was being asked was the right to sit. The report reads "to sit while the house is sitting".


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly what I said. I point out the fact that we realize very well that with the number of committees set up it is sometimes difficult for hon. members to be present in all of them, particularly so if those committees sat while the house is sitting. However, this has become the traditional course. Objection has been taken in the past, and I seem to recall that when I was in opposition similar arguments were advanced.
I also recall, however, that when it came to the implementation of the power given by the house, then as now this course was not arbitrarily followed. Every consideration has been given to hon. members by the committee to the end that hon. members will not be placed in an impossible position.

Railways and Canals Committee
I simply raise the question because that has been the practice in the past, and no harm that I know of has resulted under that practice. I am sure that every care and consideration will be exercised by the chairman and members of the committee to the end that injustice or inequity should not be allowed to occur, and to the end in particular that hon. members shall not be denied the fullest opportunity to be present in the house.
Sometimes when this question is raised it occurs to me that although hon. members have a very strong desire not to have committees sit while the house is sitting, the attendance of hon. gentlemen in this house is not always what it should be. It is no different in this house from the situation that obtains in the British House of Commons. All hon. members are not present throughout the full day. After the orders of the day have received attention those hon. members who are particularly interested in subjects coming before the house remain in attendance. I am sure that no injustice would be done under this arrangement.
Sometimes we hear it said that our members are not present to the degree that they should be, that more of them should be in the house. That has been said throughout the years. I was impressed upon reading Friday's issue of the London Times to learn that on Thursday in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom it was found that there was not a quorum present. When the matter was brought to the attention of the speaker those who were in the environs came in and the house proceeded. The fact that hon. members are not always present but have other work to do in no way indicates their lack of interest and responsibility.
That being so, I am sure that much of the argument to the effect that there would be gross interference with the rights of private members, in the event that this motion was passed, tends to disappear in the light of experience.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Perhaps I might be allowed to say one word in connection with the matter. The objection taken by the hon. member for Ottawa West had to do with two committees only, the one last week dealing with banking and commerce and the other this week dealing with railways, canals and telegraph lines. The objection taken in connection with both was that it seemed to him and to us that the over-all powers should not be taken at this time because in these committees, and more particularly in the one now before the house, the matters dealt with normally are bills of a public or a private nature, where it is not necessary for witnesses to remain in attendance on the committee over a period


of hours or even days. In my experience, at least, most of the time they have been witnesses from government departments, principally from the Department of Transport or its agencies. Surely it cannot be said that it is difficult for these witnesses to come here.
Therefore it seemed to us, as I am sure it seemed to the hon. member for Ottawa West, that this was a power which should not be given until later on in the session. If there should come a time when witnesses were required to remain here for several days, then a request could be made for the power. It seemed to us that this power should not be asked for now because it is not necessary. This is a matter which I at least would like to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister.


William Marvin Howe: I should like to say that the committee we are discussing today has a great deal to do with the national development of Canada. If the hon. member for Laurier will cast his mind back he will recall that a great many bills of one kind or another, having to do with the development of Canada from one end of the country to the other, come before this committee. There have been occasions when witnesses have been brought here and if the sitting had extended over several days it would have entailed considerable personal sacrifice and expense on the part of these people. Therefore I do not think we are at all out of order in asking for this privilege.
As I say, this is not something new; it is something that has been done before. I suggest that the house accept this motion. I can assure the house and the committee that we will not abuse the privileges that are being given to this committee by this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? The question is on the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Mcllraith) negatived on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) asked certain questions regarding the repair of mail boxes, and I am now able to reply.
In order to provide work in connection with the rehabilitation and training of prisoners, post office street letter boxes and relay boxes have been repaired in penitentiaries, principally Kingston penitentiary, for many

years and certainly since the 1900's. Only the metal work has been carried on in the penitentiaries; no locks were repaired there and no keys officially manufactured.
However, late in 1956 Post Office Department officials received an indication that keys might have been secretly manufactured in Kingston penitentiary and smuggled out. As a result discussions took place with the penitentiary officials, and my department received assurances from them that protective measures would be taken.
Recently certain mail box thefts were committed with illegally manufactured keys, and my officials informed me that keys were again issuing from Kingston penitentiary despite the protective measures which had been taken there. This was the first indication I had been given of this problem, and as a result it has been decided to discontinue mail box repairs in penitentiaries and have the work done by commercial firms.
I have given consideration to changing the locks on mail boxes but have decided against this step at this time, because there are over 40,000 such boxes spread across Canada and the estimated cost would be in excess of $200,000, and there would be no effective increase in security. The type of professional criminal who is able to procure a key and use it to open mail boxes will not be deterred by a change of locks; even bank vaults and safes are not always proof against their ingenuity. Furthermore, in most cases where mail boxes have been rifled the box has been forcibly broken open and no key has been involved at all.
Perhaps I might be permitted to say a few words more, Mr. Speaker, on a closely related subject. It has been post office practice for a number of years to pay rewards to those giving information leading to the arrest and conviction of persons who have committed offences concerning the post office. A similar practice is followed by the Canadian Bankers' Association and other organizations.
Some of these organizations have publicized their willingness to pay these rewards and have found it helpful. Until now the Post Office Department has not done so, but we will shortly be issuing a poster for display in all post offices offering rewards of from $200 to $2,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those guilty of various types of offences against the post office and the mail it carries.
The two actions I have referred to today, Mr. Speaker, indicate that while it may never be possible to eliminate thefts, robberies and burglaries completely, aggressive action is being taken by the government to prevent such occurrences and to apprehend and convict those responsible. One measure
Housing
of our success in this regard has been demonstrated by the fact that the number of robberies in the nine months ending December 31 has decreased from 292 in the previous year to 248 in the current year, and our losses of cash and postal supplies from such robberies dropped from $135,557 in the same period of the previous year to $87,042 for the current year.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house has listened with interest to the statement which the Postmaster General has just made in connection with this important matter. It is difficult, of course, when such a statement is read to follow it carefully. However, when Hansard is available tomorrow we will have an opportunity of reading the statement in detail.
From what the minister has said and the statement he has made to the house there is no doubt that the hon. member for St. Denis was well advised in raising the question when he did on, I believe, more than one occasion. In the granting of awards the Postmaster General has in mind I think he should give consideration to giving a reward to the hon. member for St. Denis.


William McLean Hamilton: He
will get his from the electors in the next election.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for St. Denis unquestionably warrants the reception of one on two counts, not only because of the fact that he raised this important subject but also because of the fact that he was scoffed at by those on the other side of the house when he did raise it.



HOUSING


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the statement I wish to make has nothing to do with awards. Because of the swift and vigorous response of the house building industry to actions taken recently by the government and the resulting very significant impact on unemployment, I wish to make a brief statement.
All hon. members will, I know, be happy to learn that total National Housing Act lending activity in January was higher than in the same month for any other year in the whole history of N.H.A. activities. Loans were requested during the month for 3,515 dwelling units. This figure compares with a mere 157 in January, 1960, and with the previous high of 3,192 in January, 1958.

Housing
Of the 3,515 units, 1,460 were by approved lenders compared with 151 a year ago and 1,580 in January, 1955, when the banks had their first full year of lending under the National Housing Act, 1954. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation financed the balance of 2,055 units. Although most of the January loans were to home owner applicants and to builders who had already obtained purchasers, a feature of the month's lending was the $8,135,000 approved for 961 units of limited dividend rental accommodation for lower income families and elderly persons.
I must report also that the rising trend in new housing starts, unbroken since last August, continued in January, the increase being 4.7 per cent over the same month a year ago.
Finally, I revert to December, 1960, which was a near record month for home improvement loan activity. This, of course, reflected extension of these loans to rental properties, including apartment houses. Home improvement loans during the month amounted to $4,683,000, the highest dollar volume since September, 1958. These figures indicate, Mr. Speaker, the immediate effects on economic activity and employment of some of the amendments to the National Housing Act were made in December last.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the house will rejoice in the message the Minister of Public Works has just given it, more particularly that part having to do with increased activities in housing generally and the rising trend in housing starts. My friend the hon. member for Nipis-sing, who deals with these matters for this side of the house, is unfortunately absent in his own constituency; otherwise he would be commenting on this announcement.
All I need say at the moment is that anything done in this house which tends to assist the construction industry or the possibility of employment will be welcomed on this side of the house. None the less, we cannot help but couple the statement the minister has just made with the one he made on the radio, I believe it was on Friday, wherein he stated that the unemployment situation would be a great deal worse before it would get better. I trust that the measures he will bring before this house will have the effect of improving the situation in the near future.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: The
members of this group are happy to know that the prodding and suggestions and advice of

members of the opposition have moved the government to action so that the minister has pleasure in announcing this measure of winter success in housing. We trust the minister will continue to accept our suggestions and advice, and it is hoped that he will have further successes and achievements to report.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 43
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Minister of Transport or any of his officials, and any municipality, company or persons, relating to the establishment of an airport at Creston, British Columbia, since January 1, 1960.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Megantic) moved:: That in the opinion of this house the government should consider the advisability of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act so that any benefits to which a Canadian worker would have been entitled be made available to his widow.
(Translation):
He said: In introducing this resolution, it is advisable to read the notice of motion. We find then that those concerned by the resolution now under discussion are the needy mothers. The notice of motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act so that any benefits to which a Canadian worker would have been entitled be made available to his widow.
That idea, Mr. Speaker, was suggested to me by one of my constituents who had obviously discussed the matter with his fellow workers. It is as a result of some practical experience that this idea sprang up in the minds of those workers.
As long ago as the first session of this parliament, I had the opportunity of discussing this matter briefly when I took part in the throne speech debate.
I shall refrain from saying again what I stated at that time, but I should like to refer my hon. friends to page 347 of Hansard of May 22, 1958.
Subsequently, every year since 1958, I put on the order paper the resolution I have just read. As you know, Mr. Speaker, according to the rules of this house, if a resolution is

not among the first six ones to be drawn, it stands no chance of being discussed during that same session. That is what happened in 1958, 1959 and 1950.
But in 1961, in the course of this session which started in November, I placed this motion on the order paper the very first day. It happened to draw number three, which gives me an opportunity to deal with it more fully today and go into more detail than I did in my outline of May 22, 1958. May I point out immediately that this proposal is in line with the general policy of the Liberal party in the field of social security. That is so true that I am going to quote to you right now paragraph 5 of page 28 of the new statement of Liberal policy made in 1958:
Extend unemployment Insurance benefits to as many people as possible.
Well, you are quite aware, Mr. Speaker, that eligibility for unemployment benefits is not transferable in case of death. The heirs cannot expect to receive any more than what is owed to the deceased in the week of his death.
You know, Mr. Speaker, that the death of the head of a family always brings tragedy in the family, because he leaves a widow and children behind him, and sometimes quite a number of children. The death of the father leaves his family without a breadwinner. Such a tragedy, of course, causes more hardship in the working classes because it is in those classes that people live from hand to mouth.
It is of the utmost importance that a family should have minimum resources to carry on for a while after the death of the breadwinner. As you know, Mr. Speaker, a certain amount of time must elapse after a decease, particularly in the case of the head of a family, before the estate can be settled, and it sometimes takes up to six months. And during that time, bank accounts and other properties belonging to the estate are temporarily frozen under both federal and provincial succession duty legislation.
And the widow and children are sometimes forced to borrow large sums of money at heavy interest to take care of their needs.
It is true that there are provincial workman's compensation laws and also laws providing assistance to mothers in need. But here again, for a case to be processed by the workmen's compensation board, in instances where death is the result of an accident, it takes time, and the widow has no money to 90205-6-111
Unemployment Insurance Act live on in the meantime. In the case of a mother in need, the inquiry by the provincial officials takes from three to six months, and I hardly need to stress the plight of the mother during that time.
The suggestion I am making today, on behalf of the people of the Megantic riding, would cover that period of time and provide the people concerned with a minimum of money to live in the meantime. Then, under what circumstances could those benefits be obtained? Evidently, the present terms of the act will continue to apply. In the case of a labourer or a wage-earner, the application will be dealt with according to section 25 of the act, which defines the insured occupations. It would also be necessary to establish whether the benefits are regular or seasonal. That is not too important, for all you would have to do would be to look up the file of the individual concerned to determine whether he is entitled to regular or seasonal benefits.
If the head of a family dies as a result of an accident, of illness or an accident sustained on his job, I submit that even then it is not too important because the general provisions of the act would still apply.
If the widow is getting benefits under the workmen's compensation act, she would of course have to declare her earnings to the unemployment insurance commission, and if such earnings exceed the amount permissible under the Unemployment Insurance Act, she would not in such a case, be entitled to unemployment benefits. But if, on the other hand, her incbme is below the permissible amount she could obtain the difference allowed by the Unemployment Insurance Act.
In the case of death following an illness, it would be necessary to establish whether the illness started while the individual was unemployed, or even whether it was the cause for the separation from employment. There again, the general terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act would apply, and people claiming benefits would have to comply with the other provisions of that act.
If death resulted from an accident other than an occupational accident, the solution would be easy. The widow could then apply for and obtain unemployment insurance benefits.
Now, for how long should the widow be entitled to such benefits? At present, the act provides for 52 weeks of regular benefits, while seasonal benefits are available only for the period comprised between December 1 and May 15.
175G

Unemployment Insurance Act
The act could operate normally and the benefit period could depend on the number of weekly contributions standing to the credit of the deceased breadwinner.
Mr. Speaker, those are the main reasons why I feel that the draft resolution under review today should receive the support of all members, regardless of whether they sit on this side of the house or on the government side.
. The benefits payable under such circumstances would cause no extra drain on the unemployment insurance fund, since only a small percentage of the people of this country would be entitled to them.
In closing, I urge my hon. friends to allow this resolution to be adopted by the house today.
(Text):


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, this house is asked to express an opinion. If we accepted the resolution proposed by the hon. member we would be recommending that the government give consideration to amending the Unemployment Insurance Act in such a way as to give a widow whatever benefits a deceased worker was entitled to receive.
It is a resolution which appeals to our better qualities. It is sentimental. I do not doubt in the least that people would go along with that suggestion, with that idea, in the proportion of ten to one. It no doubt appeals to the Canadian worker, as it is intended to. If the Canadian worker is concerned with anything he is concerned about the financial position which his wife would have to meet in the event of his death. Though he might be a spendthrift and live from hand to mouth and day to day he would still be in favour of this idea, because a dollar, no matter from What source, is a welcome addition to the security of his widow.
This resolution is intended to appeal to the widows of workers, and no doubt it will. There is hardly a woman who does not live from day to day in fear of losing the breadwinner of her family, of losing her mate, of losing her loved one. Above all she worries about the financial condition in which her family would find itself in the event of her husband's death. This house should commend the hon. member for having conceived the idea contained in the present motion. Although he does not claim full paternity of it I still give him credit for bringing the idea to the attention of the house. We should not be


human, we should not be Christian, if we did not admit that the idea behind this resolution is a Christian one.
However, the hon. member for Megantic has made reference to some of our statutes which provide for security to widows. I wish to elaborate on them, and to say that the idea is not a new one. Every province has statutes which are intended to assist destitute widows, in particular widows who are left with children. We have provincial workmen's compensation acts, which provide for compensation to widows whose husbands lose their lives in the course of their employment. We have the wives' and children's maintenance acts. We have a child welfare act in Manitoba under which the state provides for the needs of a widow left with children. Rights to benefit are conferred in Ontario under the statute known as the mothers' and dependent children's allowance act, which provides for such contingencies. Nor do the federal statutes fail to make provision for destitute widows or widows who require assistance. I refer hon. members in particular to the war widows' allowances act. That is as far as it goes.
I fully realize that unless a widow qualifies under these statutes she cannot receive assistance. That is why the hon. member's idea is a commendable one. A widow could be left penniless on the sudden death of her husband; she might not even have enough money to meet the funeral expenses. Even if her husband does leave an estate, I admit that it does take time to obtain letters of administration or letters of probate from our courts before she has access to whatever resources may have been left.
The concept behind the hon. member's resolution appears to be that a widow should receive at least the sum to which her husband would be entitled under the Unemployment Insurance Act. That seems to be the crux of the matter embodied in the resolution. I ask the hon. member this question. Is there anything in the Unemployment Insurance Act which gives a workman entitlement to any particular or definite sum?
I listened very carefully to the introductory remarks of the sponsor of this resolution. He omitted to indicate to the house whether an amendment of the nature he suggests would fit in with the principles of the Unemployment Insurance Act, or whether it would in effect pervert its principles. I am led to wonder whether such an amendment could be incorporated into the act or whether it is based on a false conception, a false hope that anything and everything is possible, that all you have to do is throw responsibility on the government and condemn the government for not carrying it out even if it is impossible to carry it out.

I hope that hon. members who participate in this debate will give some thought to the questions I have posed and answer them if possible. For my part I submit that the hon. member has placed an erroneous and false interpretation on the Unemployment Insurance Act. This legislation is not social welfare legislation. The hon. member believes that an amendment under which the worker's benefits under the act could be transferred to his widow is compatible with this legislation, but he has failed to prove this and I see no possibility of it being proved. It is true that this legislation has been so frequently amended and its interpretation stretched to the breaking point that those who brought it into being would today scarcely recognize the original intentions behind the measure. I am in full accord with the intention of the hon. member, but he has built his case on erroneous premise.
I trust that hon. members will follow me in this analysis. What I have in mind is this. Under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act a worker, qualified for benefits, is entitled to receive them when he is unemployed. For the purposes of this illustration let us say he is qualified for 20 weeks of benefits at $15 a week. Under the legislation he is not entitled to 20 x $15, or $300, but is entitled to weekly benefits based on weekly reports he must make. If he obtains employment within a three-week period he will have drawn $45, but he has no legal claim on interest in or right to what he may have anticipated receiving, i.e., the balance of $300. On the basis of the premise adopted by the sponsor of this measure the worker, regardless of having found employment, would be entitled to the full $300 and could transfer that entitlement to his widow, his estate, his heirs or to whomever he pleased. If that premise were correct, of course, the hon. member's amendment embodied in this resolution would fit like a glove.
I submit that under the Unemployment Insurance Act a worker is not entitled to any certain sum. He knows what his weekly benefits will be and he knows for how many weeks he qualifies to draw unemployment insurance benefits, but he has no legal claim to any specific sum nor can he draw benefit when what is coming to him has been exhausted.
In my submission the Unemployment Insurance Act is not social welfare legislation but straight insurance, and in no way differs from, let us say, fire insurance or automobile insurance. Both those forms of insurance offer protection. The Unemployment Insurance Act offers protection to a worker in the event of the loss of his job. His entitlement to that 90205-6-llli
Unemployment Insurance Act protection is based on his contributions. Until circumstances are such that the insured under a fire insurance policy can make a claim to the company, he has no interest in the fund set aside by the insurance company to pay claims when they arise. The same situation obtains in the case of an automobile insurance policy. An insured pays his premiums but has no interest in the fund set aside by the company to meet contingencies until the insured is involved in a collision or in some other way damages his automobile.
Under fire and automobile insurance policies however, an insured is entitled to cancel his protection at any time he chooses and receive a refund of the premium he has paid. You cannot do this under the Unemployment Insurance Act. If you stop making contributions you cannot ask for a refund, because you have absolutely no interest in the unemployment insurance fund. I am not losing sight of the fact that under the provisions of this act and its regulations, out of every dollar in the fund the worker contributes five twelfths, the employer five twelfths and the federal treasury two twelfths. I should like the hon. member to explain to what portion, if any, the worker is entitled during his lifetime. I am afraid that in his introductory remarks he did not take note of that; he ignored it entirely, intentionally or otherwise.
As I have said, this resolution is very appealing; it is bound to appeal, and I think that is the hon. member's intention. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that the worker has no interest in the unemployment insurance fund to which he has contributed, none whatsoever, except on the happening of a certain event. The first event is that he has to be without a job, but under the act it is not sufficient just to be without a job. That was the principle on which the act was first built; that was the original intention of the creators or fathers of this particular legislation. First, as I said, there must be the happening of a certain event, namely that he is without a job; but that is not sufficient. There must be more, and what is that? Everyone knows that he must register, be capable of and available for work during all that period of time to which he is entitled according to the provisions of the act. By no stretch of the imagination can we say, Mr. Speaker, that a man who is sick-he may be available-is capable of work, and even less so when he is dead. But even when he is available and capable he cannot tell from week to week how much of a drain his unemployment will be on the fund. There is nothing definite, nothing certain, Mr. Speaker, and there is

Unemployment Insurance Act nothing left for the widow when he dies. Therefore this resolution is built on a permise without foundation.
The Unemployment Insurance Act is a straight insurance act with a contract being the guiding principle all through it. I have an illustration I should like to give the house. Suppose it has been determined that at the time the worker makes his claim he is entitled to a maximum of $30 per week for 12 weeks, or a total sum of $360. Has he any entitlement to this amount when his claim has been approved? Should he be unemployed for 12 weeks, certainly he will draw the $360; but if he should, as I have already mentioned, secure employment within four or five weeks, then that is all he is entitled to and that is all he will get. If he gets a job he is not entitled to any benefit. Oh, I know there are mistaken impressions and mistaken interpretations of this act throughout the country. I think every hon. member realizes that there are abuses. As I said before, this act has been amended so often that its original creators would hardly recognize it, but insurance is the main principle on which it is based.
I could give the house an example of a man or a woman who has contributed to the fund for 34 years while working at a permanent job during that time, but is required, to retire at 65 on a sizeable pension. Yet this person has the mistaken idea that because he or she has contributed to the fund for 30 or 40 years, he or she is entitled to withdraw at least the money put in, and if he or she can get more, all the better. But the act says they have to register, and they register. The next step is to be available for employment, but who wants to employ a man of a certain age who has been discharged or pensioned off by others? Through technicalities there are many people who are drawing unemployment benefits for 52 weeks. I submit that this idea would fit in wonderfully well with some portion of social legislation.
I posed certain questions to the hon. member which he did not touch on, much less try to answer. There would be a considerable drain on the fund, but the hon. member has not indicated how collections would be made or whether workers would be asked to increase their contributions. He has attempted really to create another breach in the battle that we are carrying on to defend the integrity of the fund, because to carry out this suggestion would mean a considerable drain on the fund.
I will admit that this is a good idea; it is attractive; it has a sentimental appeal, but it does not fit into the Unemployment Insurance Act. It fits in no better than a square peg in a round hole. This idea could be the subject of new legislation altogether.

My sympathies are with the widow who is left penniless and needs money in a hurry, but we already have some legislation in that direction. I like the Ontario legislation that I have already mentioned. With respect to mothers' allowance legislation, it could be amended to take in the widow regardless of whether she has children of a minor age. I think this could be the subject of a special statute. I appreciate the value of this suggestion, but I submit that it does not fit into the concept of the Unemployment Insurance Act because, as I have said, there is no sum to which the worker is entitled even when he is qualified for benefits.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Megantic on bringing this very important problem before the house today, but I am afraid that right at this moment I must part company with him because this resolution is not a very good solution to the important problem that he has brought before the house.
I am also afraid that the resolution shows a woeful lack of imagination on the part of members of the Liberal party, in that once again we see them taking a fund designed for one specific purpose and trying to spread it across the whole gamut of all the social problems with which we are faced today. Let us take a look at the resolution. It reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act so that any benefits to which a Canadian worker would have been entitled be made available to his widow.
As the hon. member for Marquette pointed out in what I think was possibly a legal interpretation, the worker is not really entitled to any benefits unless he falls within a certain set of circumstances. I am not going to go into the legal aspects of the matter at all, because I do not think we have to do so. I should like to consider for a moment just what the resolution means. Is a widow only going to be entitled to whatever unemployment benefits her husband may have on his death? Is that the way we are going to solve the problem of widows in this country? Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we need a fund for widows, but not the unemployment insurance fund.
I think this resolution points up one of the reasons why we find the unemployment insurance fund in the predicament it is in today. If we cast our minds back to when the fund was originally established we will recall that it was set up for a specific purpose, on the simple theory that while a person was working he would pay a premium which would

give him at least a subsistence payment when he was temporarily out of work.
What has happened to this principle over the years? We have seen it steadily eroded through political expediency, through use being made of the fund's vote-catching possibilities which neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives apparently are able to resist. The principle of the fund has been extended far beyond its original scope. It has been extended to take in people whom it was never intended to cover under the original principle of the plan.
What has this brought about? It has created a public contempt for the fund from coast to coast. People see other people drawing benefits from the unemployment insurance fund to which in fact they were not entitled under the original plan, so they say, "If they can get it, why can I not get it"? As a result the fund has developed into a great and bottomless pork barrel into which everybody is trying to put their hand. We see it extended to business, to government, to pensioners and to the public generally, with everybody trying to get in on the act.
I had occasion not too long ago to try to establish a disability pension for one of my constituents who is afflicted with a steadily creeping paralysis. His employer, one of the mines in my riding, kept him on as long as he could possibly get to work, and they leaned over backward to try to keep his job open. When he finally reached the stage where he could no longer go to work and we were trying to obtain his disability pension, a government official advised him not to take it until his unemployment insurance benefits had run out.
Was the fund designed for that purpose? Are we supposed to care for our disability pensioners out of the unemployment insurance fund? Are we supposed to maintain our old age pensioners out of the unemployment insurance fund? Or should we establish a fund for these pensioners that would be adequate to provide them with at least a decent living?
The impression I got from the hon. member for Marquette was that we have an adequate system of social security plans without having to dip into the unemployment insurance fund. I do not accept that statement. If we did have such a system I do not think we would have this resolution before us today. In my opinion the only reason the resolution is before us is that there is a very definite need in this field, in that in many cases widows in this country are in very desperate straits. That is why the hon. member has brought this resolution before the house, and I commend him for at least that aspect of the thinking behind it.
Unemployment Insurance Act
I think we should face up to and accept our responsibilities as members of the house to try to provide some solution for this problem. However, as I said before, so far as the unemployment insurance fund is concerned I think we should return to unemployment insurance principles. I do not think there is any other piece of legislation on the statute books today that comes in for as many complaints across the country as does the unemployment insurance fund.
We hear cries from here and there that we should police the fund and try to do away with some of the many abuses that are being perpetrated against it at the present time, but I should like to say that policing is no answer. If we were to police the fund adequately we would need a police force larger than the number of civil servants we have today. The only answer I can see is some kind of massive educational program to get the Canadian people back on the right track so they will realize what the fund is for and will use it in that light.
I think it is time we did something to counteract the fallacy that has been built up in this country of a great benevolent father government granting funds to deserving children from some strange and mysterious source. I think it is time we told the Canadian people that the strange and mysterious source from which they get these funds is their own pockets and nowhere else.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: That is good Liberal doctrine.


Mr. Habel:: What a change of policy.


Murdo William Martin: It is a good Liberal doctrine that was built up over 22 years and unfortunately has been carried on by the present Conservative government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are becoming reactionary.


Murdo William Martin: I do not intend to speak too long on the resolution. However, there is one more point I should like to raise. I see a danger if we pass the resolution before us today, the danger that we will fool the public once again into thinking that this is an answer to the problem. Certainly this is not an answer to the problem of our destitute widows across the country. It is no answer to extend the unemployment benefits for six weeks or six months or even one year. It is certainly no solution to the problem. The danger is that if we pass this measure then, along with the hodgepodge of other measures we have at the present time, we will once more be fooling a certain number of the people into thinking that the job is being done when in fact it is not. This is no more an answer to the problem than the



Unemployment Insurance Act hodgepodge of social security measures we have across the country at the present time.
Instead of passing a resolution in this form in an endeavour to try to solve this problem, I say that we should first try to get the unemployment insurance fund back to unemployment insurance principles, and then devise a comprehensive social security plan that will replace what we have at the present time.


Mr. J. F. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, as the last two speakers have indicated, there would appear to be general support for the suggestion that widows in this country should be adequately provided for. However, that it should be done by means of the Unemployment Insurance Act is, of course, not as acceptable. For one thing, as the hon. member for Timmins has pointed out, it would not provide adequate protection for them to any extent and, second, such action would be absolutely beyond the concept of the Unemployment Insurance Act. In raising this matter at this time I think the hon. member for Megantic has directed our attention to what should be contained in the Unemployment Insurance Act and how it should operate.
The hon. member for Timmins has had a good deal to say about returning to unemployment insurance principles. However, in discussing this matter with people generally across the country I find that everyone has a different idea of what are unemployment insurance principles. For instance, the hon. member for Marquette compared unemployment insurance to some extent with fire insurance. I suppose a great many people have that idea, that it does compare with that in principle. However, there are many different features in unemployment insurance as compared with fire insurance. For instance, it would not make any difference whether a man had made only one premium payment to the fire insurance company; if his house burned down he would receive the entire amount of money necessary to rebuild it. The Unemployment Insurance Act has never operated in that way, because the benefits a man receives are directly contingent upon what he has paid into the fund. His own protection is related to his accumulation of credits. I do not believe that this should be the case.
Unemployment, of course, has been a serious threat to the workingman of this country, and indeed throughout the world, for over 600 years. He has struggled during the course of that time to promote legislation which will give him adequate protection against unemployment. I can only say I would be opposed to bringing anything else into this act until such time as every employable person in the

labour force of this country is given adequate protection when he is unemployed through no fault of his own. This has not been done up to the moment. It is true that the present administration has made great steps forward in providing improved protection. However, the protection is not yet complete, because we have many people who are not covered by the act at all.
If the fund is going to be drained by people drawing out of it unnecessarily, then individuals are not going to be provided for properly. One of the things for which labour has struggled throughout the years has been recognition of the fact that a man who is unemployed through no fault of his own should be in a different category from those who are suffering other forms of hardship. During the long history of the unemployed this has been a difficult thing to achieve. As far back as 1300 there was unemployment and for 300 years after that time, generally speaking, the unemployed were treated as criminals. Then for the next 300 years they were treated generally as paupers.
During this century, in most countries in the world we have made some great advances in providing protection for unemployed men. However, the unemployed man has never achieved the main principle which I believe should be accepted, and that is that a man has a right to a job. He has the right to a job or he has the right to adequate compensation for the loss of that job. I envisage the Unemployment Insurance Act, therefore, as working generally in the same way as the workmen's compensation act works. Under that act a person is compensated for the loss of his job through injury. I can only say that as long as a person is ready, willing and able to work and is in the labour force, I believe he is entitled to compensation from society if he should lose his job through no fault of his own.
When we consider the great many ways in which a man can lose a job through no fault of his own we can begin to realize just how important a proposition this may be. The most outstanding example of this, of course, and the one about which we hear most these days, is automation and technological improvements. This is one way in which a man can lose a job through no fault of his own. Perhaps the decline or decay of his trade may be another example, or the bankruptcy of his employer. There are thousands of ways in which he can lose his job through no fault of his own. When he loses his job his family suffers hardship because, under the present set-up, when the man's benefits expire he then goes on some form of unemployment assistance. This means that he is required to meet a means test. He may

lose his home and his assets, all the things for which he has worked during a lifetime, by reason of a situation which is beyond his own control.
I do not believe this should be the case. I therefore believe that the present act, instead of being opened to take in other groups as suggested in this resolution, should go forward and provide adequate protection for every employable person in this country. I believe that can be done very easily without causing any strain on the fund or upon the taxpayers of this country.
If the kind of benefits I suggest were provided, of course, there would need to be some limitations placed in the act. I would think the main principle to be incorporated in this act should be that a man is entitled either to a job or to adequate compensation if he is out of work through no fault of his own. I believe that every employable person in the labour force who is employed should contribute to the fund, regardless of his income or occupation. I say that because at the moment the contributors to the fund seem to be mainly those who are unsteady workers, and those who are steady workers seem to be left out. I think the civil service is a good example of this. The civil servants say, "We should not have to contribute to this fund; we work steadily and we are not out of a job." There are many civil servants, however, who are out of a job, civil servants who are employed on a seasonal basis.


Mr. Fisher:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he speaking to notice of motion No. 3 or to notice of motion No. 44?


John Ferguson Browne: Perhaps the hon. member's question would be better directed to Mr. Speaker. So far as I am aware, he is the one who will consider that question. I am glad to note that the hon. member for Port Arthur is showing some interest in the workings of the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have the greatest number of unemployed in Canada at the lakehead.


John Ferguson Browne: Perhaps the hon. member will take advantage of the opportunity to show us when the time comes. Perhaps if some people who are now drawing upon this fund were prohibited from doing so this would reduce the number of unemployed in Canada. In fact I was noticing just the other day that almost half the total unemployed in Canada are young, single persons residing at home with their parents. I do not believe there are many countries in the world that would consider these people unemployed. Most of them should be in school learning a trade or
Unemployment Insurance Act a proper skill so they would be able to enter the labour force and take care of themselves adequately. Then again, we know that many of those who are drawing unemployment insurance benefits are married women. It would be very difficult to prove whether or not they are interested in obtaining jobs. When they are compared with the single women covered under the act, their record is certainly very poor.
I notice that information was given to the Senate committee on manpower the other day to the effect that 85 per cent of the married women registered in the national employment service offices in September were unemployment insurance claimants. Of course these women are listed as unemployed, and they help to build up the high statistical figure for unemployment that we have in this country as compared with other countries in which the same course is not followed. This report indicated also that 77.8 per cent of the married women who were registered for unemployment insurance benefits had husbands who were working full time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: When?


John Ferguson Browne: At
the time they were claimants. I do not believe the average person in this country feels that a married woman in that category should draw benefits from the fund. We do not even know, and we are not able to ascertain, whether she is willing to work, because in some instances there are not jobs to offer and it is a very difficult thing to determine whether a woman is actually out looking for work. Because of drains of this kind upon the fund we are not giving adequate protection to those who do need it.
I believe in this way the resolution before us today has a very direct bearing on the Unemployment Insurance Act, because provision for widows could in large measure be obtained by life insurance. That would be a more adequate and proper form of insurance through which to protect widows. However, the workingman in this country is not at all times able to provide adequate life insurance. It is one of those things he hesitates to take on because it is a payment he must meet every month. While he is working he may well be able to make those payments. However, with the uncertainty of employment hanging over his head all the time, he hesitates to take on those payments to provide for his wife and family, even though he could afford to do so if he were working all the time.
Therefore if we were to put ourselves in the position where we could ensure that the workingman of this country was going to have an adequate income, whether he was

Unemployment Insurance Act employed or unemployed, then he would be in a much better position to provide that kind of insurance for his family. He would know that his income was not going to stop entirely, or that he was not going to have to meet a means test which might require him to give up all his assets before he was entitled to receive benefit payments.
That is why I believe there should be some limitations upon the act. Again, I think, there are many other people drawing out of the fund unfairly. For instance, take the case of a seasonal worker. He pays into the fund for perhaps eight months. He may earn a considerable income in those eight months because, generally speaking, those employed in seasonal industries earn higher wages than those in the other fields of employment, because of the very fact that their employment is seasonal.
I was just taking a look at this publication, "Employment and Payrolls" for September, 1960. It shows that the average wage in Canada, according to the industrial composite, is $76.57 per week. However, that is only a national average, and when we come to consider the individual industries there is quite a large variation. For instance, in the mining industry the average wage is $93.50 a week. On the other hand, in service industries the average wage is $53.16 a week. There is quite a difference; that is almost half the average weekly mining wage.
So in actual fact a person might well be in a seasonal industry and earn as much in eight months as a worker in a different industry might earn in 12 months. It would be most unfair that the one man should pay into the unemployment insurance fund for 12 months while the other man who earned perhaps a greater salary in the eight months he worked should draw benefits out of that fund for four months.
For that reason I suggest there must be a limitation placed upon the amount which a man can earn and still draw from the fund. All these kinds of things are necessary if we are going to provide adequate protection. I believe that providing an adequate level of income for the workingman would overcome many of the other difficulties in which he is placed, including this one that has been brought to our attention today, of making adequate protection for his widow. Therefore I suggest that rather than dragging other people into the fund at this time we should place a limitation upon the amount of wages a man can earn and still draw benefit from the fund.
For the purpose of setting forth these principles that I think should be contained in the act I have used the figure of $4,000. The reason I use that figure is that it is

just on the national average that I have already outlined. The national average weekly wage is $76.50. Four thousand dollars per annum, which is the figure I have suggested as a limit for the purpose of setting forth the principle, amounts to $76.90 per week.
It is obvious that here again a uniform payment across the country would not be fair or reasonable and it may have to be set on a regional basis, because when we come to look at the various areas in the country it can be seen from this same publication "Employment and Payrolls," September, 1960, that the average wage in British Columbia is $83.66 per week. On the other hand, in Prince Edward Island it is $53.72 per week. Therefore I think it would be unreasonable that the ceiling should be the same in Prince Edward Island and British Columbia. That would have to be taken into consideration in enacting the principles I have suggested. Having suggested that in my view a person who has earned in excess of $4,000, with the variation for regional differences that I have outlined-


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am very much interested in resolution No. 44, which has been placed on the order paper by the hon. member who is speaking. I am also interested not only in the resolution to which we are supposedly addressing our minds, but the next one and the one after that, which I hope we may get a chance to debate today.
I suggest, with all deference to the very fine speech the hon. member is making, that he is off the point of the resolution that is before us, which deals with amending the Unemployment Insurance Act so that the benefits payable to any Canadian worker would be payable to his widow. I suggest that if you look closely at resolution No. 44, which the hon. member has been able to give us in great detail, you will find he is making a splendid speech supporting that resolution. I submit that this is out of order. I hope we can hear him on this one some future date.


Mr. Thrasher:: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to discuss the Unemployment Insurance Act without discussing the whole act. It is very difficult to take out one part of the act or suggest an amendment to one part of the act and discuss it without bringing in the ramifications and effects it would have on the whole of the act, the original purpose of the act, the principles on which it was founded and the purposes it presently serves. It seems to me it would be very difficult if we attempted to confine the hon. member to the very narrow limits which this resolution encompasses. It seems to me that if we are

to have a proper discussion of this resolution we have to take in the whole ambit of the act.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member who has the floor anything to say about the line he has been following, to which exception has been taken?


John Ferguson Browne: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have indicated that in connection with this resolution that is before us my feeling is that if the Unemployment Insurance Act carried out the principles upon which it was founded, and extended them to the level to which they should be extended, it would be unnecessary to undertake the course of action advocated by the hon. member for Megantic.
In order to demonstrate that, I believe it is necessary to indicate clearly how I feel the act should operate within its present principles, without extending it to bringing in this new class that would be brought in by the hon. member for Megantic.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I just say a word on this subject. One does not like to interfere with a speech in which an hon. gentleman is engaged, obviously with the desirability of making a constructive suggestion, but I think it is difficult not to accede to the intervention of the hon. member for Port Arthur.
We have before us a specific resolution, and of course thus far the debate has covered a very wide range. If we are going to allow that to take place we will want, of course, to discuss some very fundamental matters affecting the fund, matters that have already been raised in this house and to which the government has not directed its attention or given any proper response.
In addition, this is a device-possibly not deliberately employed by the hon. member -being very adroitly employed by him to circumvent the practice which has prevailed in regard to the methods used to give priority to resolutions that appear under notices of motions. The resolution now before the house is the resolution put forward by the hon. member for Megantic. The resolution to which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has been addressing himself is the last resolution listed under notices of motion. In other words, as a result of what the hon. member has been doing he has been able to discuss his resolution ahead of all the other resolutions that precede it. Included in that number would be resolution No. 25, in my name, asking the house to give consideration to the following:
90205-G-112
Unemployment Insurance Act That in the opinion of this house the government should consider the advisability of extending the benefits of unemployment insurance to those Canadians who are unemployed because of illness.
I am simply pointing out that I would be perfectly justified in rising to discuss that resolution which I am sure will commend itself to every member of this house. I should be amazed if the government were to oppose that resolution. If the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway can discuss his resolution, there is no reason why we cannot discuss our respective resolutions, nor is there any reason why we cannot engage now-and this might be a very desirable thing-in a real debate upon the fundamental point, namely that the fund which would make these various measures possible is in a very perilous state.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, hon. gentlemen say "order" but they did not say "order" a few moments ago. They only raise objection when some member of the Liberal party in particular seeks to put the house right.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no doubt in my mind that the point of order is well taken. Without leave of the house the debate cannot be extended to embrace the other two resolutions, which are quite easily distinguishable and separate from the resolution now before the house. This is a very narrow resolution which calls for an extension of the benefits available to the worker under the act to his widow, and I must ask hon. members to observe the normal practice of debate and keep to the point which is before us.


John Ferguson Browne: I wonder if I might say a word on the question of anticipating a later resolution? It is quite evident that that resolution will never come before the house this session. It would therefore be impossible to use the argument that I am anticipating that resolution and debating it before it comes to the house. I might add that I think it would be impossible to discuss this question without going into the principles of the act. Otherwise one could only say "I want them in" or "I want them out". I do not see how it would be possible to present any arguments. However, I am sure the hon. member for Essex East will feel that he has achieved his purpose in preventing the proposals I have here being put before the house. I am sure he does not want to see them discussed.


Mr, Speaker:: I cannot accede to the proposition which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is making. It is the rule of relevancy which is involved, not the rule of anticipation, and unless the house gives some
1764	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act direction that all three resolutions may be debated, or waives its customary practice in respect of relevancy in debate, the hon. member will have to confine his remarks to the matter which is before us.


John Ferguson Browne: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to obey your ruling. However, I find it difficult to visualize what that would entail because, as I say, I do not know what arguments can be presented in support of my contention that these people should not be covered as suggested in this resolution unless I am free to suggest how I think the act should operate. It is difficult to deal directly with the proposition I have been putting forward. I have indicated, however, that I feel that if the act were properly drafted it would be unnecessary to include these people, and I do not see how I can pursue that argument without being allowed to say how I think the act should operate. Perhaps Your Honour might offer some guidance. I do not think it is sufficient for me to rise and simply say that I am not in favour of this resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can help the hon. member. If he would look upon this resolution as calling for an amendment to the act in the particular which is mentioned, that is, to provide that in the event of the death of a member entitled to benefits his widow could have those benefits, he would see that the amendment would not open up the whole of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which deals with countless other propositions.
It seems to me that this is a clearly distinguishable and fairly narrow resolution, and I should not be doing my duty if I allowed the debate to stray from a course which can be clearly charted, particularly as objection has been taken.


John Ferguson Browne: In the
light of Your Honour's ruling I shall have to omit some of the remarks I had wished to make and reserve them until a later time. However, I do wish to say that in my opinion the act at the present time is not providing adequate benefits for the workingmen in this country. They are not protected for long enough, and they are not protected at a sufficiently high level. Before any other group is offered any further protection under this act I want to see the act provide, as it should for the working people of this country, adequate benefits at an adequate level.


Mr. C. H. Granger (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: I am rising to support the motion. It seems to me that this resolution is designed to give a measure of protection to a class of people who need it badly at a particular time. In addition, it seems to me, it is in keeping 

with the spirit of the act. I am aware that the Unemployment Insurance Act cannot be extended into the whole field of welfare, but this particular resolution is designed to deal with one particular aspect of it, namely making available to the widow the benefits which the husband would have received had he lived, benefits which he would have used in the support of his wife and family.
The intention is clearly to make it possible for the widow to receive the benefits for which her husband had paid while he was alive. For instance, if the man had paid contributions under the Unemployment Insurance Act and had qualified for benefit and died, this resolution would allow the widow to receive the benefits to which he would have been entitled. As hon. members know, the time immediately after death is a very awkward time for the family. It is immediately after the death of the breadwinner that assistance is needed.
I do not think I need go into the humanitarian aspects of the motion. Everyone knows the acute need which exists, particularly in the homes of those people who depend on daily work for daily bread. It has been suggested that the motion has sentimental value. I would rather say it is humanitarian in its intention and eminently practicable. I have great pleasure in supporting a bill which deals with this specific need and meets a specific lack in the present Unemployment Insurance Act.
(Translation):
Mr. L. J, Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assomplion-Monicalm): Mr. Speaker, the principle of this resolution commends itself in some ways, but such legislation would be very difficult to apply because, when for instance the head of the family dies while working, the widow is entitled to the benefits provided by the workmen's compensation act, which applies in all this country's provinces. If that is not the case, a widow with children under 16 years of age may receive the pension for needy mothers, or an old age pension. Moreover, in the province of Quebec, when the pension for needy mothers or the old age pension proves inadequate, the person concerned can go to a social service centre where her case receives serious consideration and she is, under certain conditions, granted an additional monthly allowance in cash to supplement her revenue.
The hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) said a few moments ago that the widow is not entitled to an allowance until some time after her husband's death. I shall therefore remind him that, in the province of Quebec, the widow may appeal to a social service centre, and until she is able to get

a needy mothers' pension or any other pension, the social centre will supply the amounts required for her own and her children's support.
To my mind, the formula advocated by the hon. member for Megantic will be difficult to apply even if it should apply to some special case.
If my memory does not deceive me and my information is correct, any employee, who retires at the age of 65, for instance, after regularly contributing to the unemployment insurance fund may, under a section of the Unemployment Insurance Act be authorized by the government to draw the unused portion of his benefits for several months. Now if the said employee happens to die during a period in which he was receiving unemployment insurance benefits, and before they are exhausted, the Unemployment Insurance Act might be amended so as to allow the widow of the beneficiary to draw the portion of benefits to which her husband was still entitled.
To my mind, the Unemployment Insurance Act should be completely amended and transformed, and even have its title changed into employment insurance act.
Recently, a distinguished canon of the diocese of Joliette, whom I shall not name, sent me an editorial, asking that such an amendment be introduced in this house. I shall later have the opportunity of dealing with this matter when we discuss the labour estimates.
I believe it will also be advisable to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act so as to allow farmers, hospital employees, seasonal workers, and even those who are working in a family business, to benefit under that legislation, and I strongly urge the government of the province of Quebec to approach the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) and suggest that employees of the department of highways in the province of Quebec, especially part-time workers, be allowed to qualify under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say those few words in connection with this resolution. I know that its aim is limited, and that it is somewhat difficult for us to speak in a more general way on the Unemployment Insurance Act. There would be a great deal to say on this matter in the interest of the people of Canada. But I shall limit myself to stating that the motion introduced by the hon. member for Megantic, is substantially good legislation and, even if it were very difficult to apply, certainly deserves to be discussed, and in some cases applied, so as to make unemployment benefits available to widows.
90205-6-U2i
Unemployment Insurance Act
(Text):


Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the speeches made by the hon. member for Megantic, the sponsor of this resolution, and the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, who spoke in support of it. I welcome this resolution because it serves to highlight a problem we have in Canada. It underlines the fact that we do not have a comprehensive social security system in this country. I regret that history has shown that we adopt our social security system by bits and pieces. Over the years new items of legislation have been introduced, but even today we realize that many people deserving of consideration on the part of society are not receiving the required consideration.
I have examined the social security systems in other nations of the western world. Only the Netherlands has a system that is more complicated and piecemeal than ours. In most nations of the world the problem of social security has been tackled in one fell swoop.
I regret that I must oppose the resolution now before us because it is a violation of the basic principles of the Unemployment Insurance Act. May I underline the word "insurance". I give the sponsor of this resolution full marks for having regard for the widows of men who die while they are enjoying unemployment insurance benefits. However, may I ask the hon. gentleman what consideration he would give those widows after the expiry of those benefits? After all, we know there is a limit to the number of months a man can enjoy benefits under this legislation. Worthy as her cause may be, to appeal on behalf of the widow for only those limited months during which her deceased husband would have been in receipt of unemployment insurance appears to be most inadequate.
If we had a transferrable, portable pension plan as advocated by hon. members of this group over the years, and if we had a comprehensive social security plan we would not have to worry about the idiosyncrasies of existing legislation. We would not have, in the light of important national problems, to move resolutions of relatively minor importance even though they may be of major significance to the individuals involved at the time. I am rather disappointed that a spokesman for the Liberal party attempts to involve this house in a day long debate on a minor resolution having to do with only one of our social security laws in order to obtain benefits for a very limited number of people. We in our group humbly submit that the time of this house could be

Unemployment Insurance Act put to better use and even the attendance in this house might be greatly enhanced if we were to engage in an all-out campaign to replace the existing piecemeal legislation that we now have with an over-all basic social security law.
We have pensions for the blind; we have pensions for the handicapped; we have old age pensions; we have pensions for those over 70; we have pensions for veterans; we have pensions for the burnt-out veterans; we have pensions for the youngster aged from zero to 16; we have pensions for this and pensions for that, each with its fantastically costly overhead and administration. I am sure if we analysed what the taxpayers of Canada are paying for social security at the present time, with all the overhead, all the red tape and the paper work involved, together with the means tests and all the rest of it, and compared that with the cost of a basic, comprehensive social security system as they have in the United Kingdom and in most of the other western nations of the world, we would realize that we are heading in the wrong direction with our little amendments here and our new acts there to look after another little category and the whole hierarchy of administration involved. I believe we would easily recognize in our investigation that we should offer to our people a basic minimum standard of living at a much lower cost. Therefore, we feel this is wrong in so far as the basic principle is concerned. It is also a violation of the intent of the Unemployment Insurance Act to introduce the amendment of-ferred in this resolution.


Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution that I approve of but with reservations. The first question I should like to ask the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) is, how much would this cost the taxpayers? It is so much easier for opposition members to introduce amendments, bills or resolutions than it is for members on the government side to accept them because the government side has to find the money for them.
What the hon. member for Megantic is really doing is to add to the Unemployment Insurance Act a life insurance clause. What I should like to see set up is a separate fund for widows, to which management, workers and government would contribute, and from this fund would go benefits to the widow whose late husband has been entitled to benefits from the Unemployment Insurance Act. In other words, it would be quite separate from the act.


Erhart Regier: Another plan?


Margaret Aitken: Yes, another plan, not in the Unemployment Insurance Act. I make this suggestion because there are tens of thousands of Canadians contributing to the Unemployment Insurance Act who never have and never will collect a cent. They are the ones who bitterly resent the chiselling that has been exposed in regard to the Unemployment Insurance Act, and they are the ones who feel bitter when they are told by such a man as the economist Warren James, when he spoke before the Senate manpower committee, that nearly a hundred thousand people were not genuinely claimants for benefits but were collecting them. It seems to me it is grossly unfair to the honest contributors who will never collect from the fund that this should be going on, and it would be even more unfair to give benefits to the widows of unemployed men who were collecting benefits and not give the same pensions to all widows of men who had contributed to that fund. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, this would deplete the unemployment insurance fund in no time at all.
We all agree that the Unemployment Insurance Act is a fine piece of legislation; it is a bulwark against anyone actually suffering while unemployed, but it cannot be treated as an elastic band and stretched beyond capacity. That is why I say this resolution is a good one but I do not believe it should be implemented through amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Instead, it should be a separate piece of legislation. I believe that a separate fund could be set up to which we would all contribute and from which widows of contributors might collect benefits for X number of weeks. This at least would alleviate some of the financial worries after the death of the breadwinner.
While on this subject, Mr. Speaker, may I say there seems to have been pretty general unanimity here this afternoon on the subject of benefits for widows, but I should like to point out that members of the House of Commons have not been practising what they preach. They have shown a very marked lack of generosity in regard to the widows of members of parliament. A man may serve his country for 25 or 30 years as a member of parliament and contribute to a pension retiring fund which is actuarially sound and yet when he dies his widow gets no pension. I do not believe the average Canadian appreciates the sacrifice that a politician's wife is called upon to make, both in the disrupting of family life and in being exposed to the rough and tumble of political life. I believe it would be a fine thing if we could set up a fund for the widows of men who have contributed to the unemployment insurance fund. I also think it would be a just act if we could extend the

payments that members of parliament make to their pension plan so that their widows might also benefit.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a word on this resolution which no doubt has a great appeal to the Canadian people in general and more especially to the humanitarian aspect which is found in all of us. During the course of the debate this afternoon something was said about the danger that would arise in introducing changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act which, if the intent of the resolution is accepted, would place an additional drain on the fund.
The hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) favoured the establishment of a separate fund to take care of widows. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in order to appreciate the intent of the resolution one should have an understanding of the Unemployment Insurance Act which was introduced in 1941 by a Liberal government. Under this act unemployment insurance is contributory and each of the contributory groups, that is, government, employer and employee, has a direct interest in the insurance fund. In dealing with individual claims the rights of all contributors must be considered. The receipt of a benefit is a statutory right of the claimant who has met the required conditions. In other words, when an insured person makes a claim he is asking for something to which he is entitled and is not asking for a gift. It is a right which cannot be attacked even by a court of law. By that I mean that it cannot be denied in any way or be subjected to garnishee by a court of law.
The moneys in the unemployment insurance fund may be used for only two purposes, namely for those who are rightly entitled to make claim for benefit and, second, by way of a refund of contributions if contributions were made in error. To be entitled to a claim for benefit, therefore, one must have been a contributor and establish proof of a contribution record of not less than 30 weeks. Another condition required is that the individual demonstrate that he is capable of and available for work but unable to obtain work that he can perform.
The suggestion contained in the resolution that the benefits legally due to a claimant based on his record of contributions be paid to his widow may be contradictory to the basic principles on which unemployment insurance was conceived. However, the resolution does not presume that upon the death of the insured the benefits would be paid to his widow if the employee had not been drawing unemployment insurance at the time
Unemployment Insurance Act of his death. The widow would only be entitled to the benefits until entitlement is exhausted.
It can be argued that if such an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act as would conform with the intent of the resolution were to be made it would be a precedent which, if extended, would ultimately impose a still greater drain on the fund which is now dangerously near being depleted without the assumption of additional burdens. Notwithstanding the fact that the widow could not be deemed to have made any contributions to the fund, nor could the interpretation be that she would have assumed the place of her deceased husband in the labour market, the benefits which she would receive under this amendment would be very modest indeed.
I fully realize that every insured person under the act is issued an insurance number for life. The number is not transferable and upon the death of the insured it is retired and never again used by anyone. The number, therefore, is positive identification which gives the insured person the right to benefit.
In spite of all the objections which have been raised this afternoon I would urge hon. members to examine the resolution carefully in the light of the humanitarian aspect of its intent, and I wish to commend the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) for introducing a measure for the consideration of the house which, if approved, would give a little lift to some of those who have suffered that irreparable loss which no material benefits can possibly replace.


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


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


Edwin William Brunsden: This is for clarification only. He speaks of the payment of unemployment insurance benefits by right or by need. I am just wondering whether he carries that principle into the payment of unemployment insurance itself regardless of the aspect of widows.


Hubert Badanai: The purport of the resolution is that an amendment would be introduced which would make it possible to pay to the widow the benefits accrued by the deceased if he was unemployed when he died. If he was working at the time of his death or before his death then the benefit would not apply. That is the point.


Mr. Murray Smith (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that the significant words of the resolution are "benefits to which a Canadian worker would have been entitled be made available to his widow". In discussing a resolution of this nature I

Unemployment Insurance Act feel that we must look not only at the specific words but at the benefits in general that are paid out of the unemployment insurance fund. In effect this resolution would introduce a new class of persons who would draw benefits from the fund. I should like to say that for a member who has placed the same resolution on the order paper on past occasions I thought that while his motives may have been sound and sincere he did a somewhat inadequate job of introducing the resolution. I feel that he could have clarified it much better and advanced many more arguments in favour of the resolution than he did.
For example, certain questions came to my mind immediately when I read the resolution. How long would the widow be entitled to draw benefits? Would she be entitled to draw them for the same period that her deceased husband would have been entitled to draw benefits? Would she be entitled to draw benefits for life? What would happen in the case of a man who died say next Monday and would have been laid off next Tuesday and thus be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits? What would happen to his widow? Would she be entitled to draw benefits? Where would the dividing line be drawn? If the widow is entitled to draw benefits for life, are we not in fact setting up a new pension scheme paid for by the taxpayers of this country? I feel that all of these questions should have been explained to us by those who advocate that this resolution be passed.
The hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) also mentioned that this resolution is in accordance with the general policy of the Liberal party. This was a rather frightful statement when we realize that those who were placed in a position to draw seasonal benefits by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) are responsible for some of the depletion of the fund today. Now we have a member of the Liberal party attempting to add another class of people to those entitled to draw from this fund, thus further depleting it. The hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) adequately pointed out that we must be concerned about the cost not only to the fund but to the contributors to the fund, the taxpayers of the country, the employees and employers of the country.
I was very pleased to hear the remarks made by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin), for whom I have a regard almost equal to his vastness. He mentioned that the fund was designed for one specific purpose when it was originally set up and now, because of Liberal policy referred to by the bon. member for Megantic, we find the fund being spread across all the social problems

with which we are faced today. As a result of this the public of this country, and particularly those who pay into the unemployment insurance fund, have come to think of this fund as an inexhaustible source of money which can be used for almost any reason. Indeed, this is no exaggeration when we look at the abuses that are heaped upon this fund today by employers as well as employees.
I heartily endorse the suggestion made by the hon. member for Timmins that the policing of the fund is no answer but rather that we need a system of education in this country to show the people that they have an interest in this fund and that it should not be abused. We should show the people why the fund should be operated on sound insurance principles for the benefit of the worker and the employer.
I was very sorry that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) was not permitted to continue his argument as to why the widow of a deceased worker should not be allowed to draw from this fund. When a person stands up and says he is opposed to this resolution that may be construed by some as being against any help whatever for widows. I do not believe any member of this house, regardless of where he sits, regardless of what stand he takes on this resolution, could in all fairness be said to be against relief for widows.
However, in considering relief for widows do we not have to go farther than the UnEmployment Insurance Act? Are there not other agencies in this country that have a part to play so far as pensions to widows are concerned, particularly widows of deceased workmen? If you consider the widows of deceased workmen, why not consider widows generally? Do not municipalities have a part to play? Do not the provinces have an obligation? Why must everything come from the unemployment insurance fund? Why set up another drain on the fund? Why should not other methods and means be explored? I, Mr. Speaker, am against this resolution for the reasons that I have outlined and also because I feel this government is possibly more concerned with the unemployed in this country than either of the parties sitting in opposition.
The speech from the throne contained the announcement that amendments would be made to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I believe this government is studying the whole operation of the act with a view to providing a comprehensive program that will embrace not only unemployed persons but those seasonal workers who are not drawing from the fund. This is my hope and my expectation as a believer in sound principles of conservatism. I think there is a great deal

of merit in the suggestion that two funds should be set up. Indeed, there is a great deal of merit in the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way before he was prohibited, under the rules, from continuing his line of discussion.
There are many ways in which we could stop the drain on the fund. What about those who are coming into the labour market today? It has been advocated in some quarters that we should have a program of conscription in order to train the young people coming on to the labour market, and who are not able to find jobs. They would achieve the necessary skills after they had served their term in uniform.


Erhart Regier: Shame on that.


William Murray Smith: The hon. member says, "Shame on that". His party is well known for their stand on pacifism and neutralism, but we will debate those subjects at some other time.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I sincerely hope some of the colleagues of the hon. member for Megantic, particularly the hon. member for Essex East, will endeavour to clarify some of the questions I have raised. I hope they will put forward some arguments that have a sounder basis than those that have been put forward so far.
It is all well and good to sit in the opposition and say that we must provide benefits for the widows of deceased workers. But what are the solutions to the problems? Where is the money to come from? How much is it going to cost the fund? Has any estimate been made of that? What happens in the case of the widow of a worker who dies a day or two before he is entitled to draw benefits? There are many aspects of this question that must be explored and many questions that must be answered. I hope some of the colleagues of the hon. member for Megantic will undertake this task on his behalf.
(Translation):


Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. He has repeated something that we have known for a long time, i.e. that the Conservative government has no other policy, to solve the unemployment problem, as the hon. member has just indicated, than to conscript the unemployed.


Mr. Johnson:: That is not what he said. He did not say that.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I do not know whether that idea reflects the policy of the Conservative party but, once again, it is not the first time that it is being put forward. Besides, if the hon. member who has just resumed his
Unemployment Insurance Act seat had nothing else to submit to us, he could very well have abstained from speaking on this resolution. I quite understand his general argument to the effect that the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) has not supplemented this resolution with sufficient details to provide for all cases.
This is not a bill. It is a resolution. The hon. member for Megantic is merely asking us to support a principle. And, obviously, if the majority of members voted in favour of the resolution, it would then be in order to draft a bill containing more details.
But, for the time being, we are concerned here with a principle, and, as a representative of a labour constituency, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for submitting that fine idea which is bound to benefit workers in general.
I am delighted that such an idea should have come from a Liberal member, as everyone knows that, from time immemorial, in the field of social security, the Liberals have always put forward ideas and principles designed to fight all forms of ignorance and insecurity. You will recall that last year in the industrial relations committee, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) introduced a motion dealing with unemployment.
(Text):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is out of order.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I am out of order, and I shall go on with my remarks so that you can judge by yourself.
Last year, the hon. member for Essex East asked that unemployment under all its aspects be debated and if such a discussion had taken place, we would have been able to examine this particular situation in which a family finds itself when the father is unemployed; but it was never discussed. And this is what brought up the idea behind this resolution.
Of course, when the father is unemployed, the family, the children cannot enjoy the same standard of living as other Canadians; they have to do without drugs, they are destitute and some of them cannot even continue their studies. It is quite easy to understand that if the father dies in such circumstances, the widow finds herself in an extremely difficult situation. Therefore, I feel

Unemployment Insurance Act that we, the legislators who should make possible a reasonable level of living for all Canadians, should give particular attention to those who are destitute. I think this is where lies the merit of this resolution to make available to the widow of a Canadian citizen the unemployment benefits to which the latter would normally have been entitled.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the workers in general and organized labour in particular will pay attention to the idea put forward by the hon. member for Megantic.
I do not think that we should vote against this resolution or extend this debate until ten o'clock without knowing whether the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) or the government are in favour of the principle of this resolution.
With unemployment at a record level in this country at the present time, the family should be given a measure of security, and I do not think the government should deal lightly with this question as did the hon. member who spoke before me. As I say, most Canadians would favour this principle which affects the working class.
The hon. member for Megantic is only asking that we declare ourselves in favour of this resolution and then, in due time, a legislation containing all the details that have not been explained so far could be introduced in this house.
(Text):


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to express briefly my views on the subject dealt with by this resolution. I assume that the mover, knowing how often widows are left in difficult financial circumstances, wishes to assist at least those whose husbands are entitled to benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I, too, well realize the need. I know of many cases where widows are in very needy circumstances, where the husband was unable for one reason or another, to provide for his widow. Indeed I know of many cases where the husband was unable to provide for his own funeral expenses.
Some may feel that this is the man's own fault if he did not make this provision while living so that his widow and family would be provided for after his death. There may be cases where this is true; but, generally speaking, when a man fails to provide for his widow it is because he was unable to do so. Even if no provision was made through the man's own fault because he may have been a spendthrift, as was suggested by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk), that does not alter the fact that the widow is in real need of assistance. Therefore I think that the object which this resolution seeks

to obtain is a worthy one and one which will meet with general approval.
I think we should realize that husbands, especially those in the lower income group, just cannot always make adequate provision for their wives and children because the income they earn must be used for the maintenance of the home and family. So that too often, and much too often, men die and leave their widows in desperate financial circumstances. I am referring to those who do not leave estates, as was referred to by the sponsor of the resolution in his remarks.
This is true not only when, unfortunately, a young man dies leaving young children, but it is also true of older men whose families have grown and have established homes of their own. I realize, of course, that in many cases some provisions are made by governments. If a man dies, leaving children under 16 years of age, the widow will receive mother's allowance from the provincial authorities until the children are 16 years of age. This has already been mentioned by some previous speakers. If the widow is 65 years of age she can receive old age assistance. There is also workmen's compensation, and so on.
But there are many who do not qualify for any of these benefits. If they are in need they can only apply for assistance under the social assistance act where this is in effect. I know that in my own province of Nova Scotia this is only paid if the municipality has agreed to share the cost, and certainly in Nova Scotia they have not all done so. Even where it is paid it is not the answer. There is still the idea of receiving public charity; there is no certainty that it will continue to be paid. I believe widows deserve better from their country. I think they should have that peace of mind, that feeling of security, which a pension gives when they receive assistance as a matter of right, not as charity and not as a favour.
Let us examine the situation which faces many women when their husbands die. At such a time there is always a need of money and often there is none. It is a time of severe emotional distress. Many adjustments have to be made, and it is at this most difficult time a widow has to face financial distress and make many difficult decisions. I know that younger women, if they have had special training before marriage, can often return to work. One sees them working as teachers, nurses, stenographers, office clerks and the like. But for a woman over 50 years of age it is another matter. She has spent her adult life as a homemaker. There is no possibility of employment for her; she has none of the skills or training necessary for a position in business or industry.

Personally, I believe the Canadian people have an obligation towards these widows, an obligation we should recognize and fulfil.
The amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act proposed by this resolution would not solve the whole problem. Yet it would be of some assistance to many widows, and it is for this reason I support it. I well realize it would not assist those widows whose husbands did not come under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Further, it would not help those whose husbands had used up their benefits, and these in all probability would be in a worse financial position than widows whose husbands had not drawn such benefits. Again, if a man prior to his death had been receiving benefits there might be very little left for the widow to receive.
I well understand also that the Unemployment Insurance Act was not designed to make the proposed payments, to widows; it was not meant to be life insurance. Indeed, it is more in the nature of sickness or accident insurance. I suppose some people feel that since they have made contributions under the Unemployment Insurance Act, perhaps for many years, and received no benefits, their widows should receive them. I do not think this would apply any more than one would expect to get back premiums under an accident policy if one did not have an accident.
I think if this amendment were adopted there would have to be an increase in the contributions made by employers and employees, and there may be considerable opposition to this. Perhaps it is not practical to amend the act as this resolution seeks to do. As to this I express no opinion. If it can be done and I repeat, if it can be done, I would suggest that all widows of men who made contributions be treated equally and that any benefits received by the husbands be disregarded. I would further suggest that all such widows receive a lump sum payment or a weekly payment regardless of whether the husbands had received benefits, or, indeed, had exhausted their benefits under the act.
I think the mover of the resolution has performed a very useful service in bringing this problem to the attention of the house. It serves the purpose of focusing the attention of this house on the gap, as it were, which exists in our social security system. We do not have provision for the widows left in poor circumstances I have mentioned. Indeed, we do not have provision, either, for those older unmarried women who are without adequate means of support and who do not qualify for any of the various pensions now in effect. I believe the Canadian people would welcome the opportunity to make pro-
Unemployment Insurance Act vision for pensions for those unmarried women who need assistance, or who will need assistance long before they would qualify for old age assistance. I hope it will not be too long before provision can be made so that those widows and those unmarried women I have mentioned will be receiving some form of pension. The need is there, and the need is great.
In any event, the proposal before us would, if adopted, give needed assistance to some widows at least.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: The resolution with which we are dealing today is one which I believe should be considered from every possible angle, because I am of the opinion that all members of this house are sincerely concerned about any situation where a widow finds herself in financial difficulties as a result of the loss of the family breadwinner.
Most of us at one time or another have witnessed the very difficult circumstances in which some widows find themselves. I know we all feel very strongly that various means should be provided in order that these financial difficulties might be in some way alleviated. Fortunately the financial situation does not always present the same degree of hardship. As has been mentioned today there are various provisions for the assistance of widows. Some hon. members have mentioned widows' allowances, which are available if financial circumstances prove them to be necessary. I believe this is a very worth-while social measure. Other hon. members have pointed out that compensation is sometimes available. We must, of course, remember that generally compensation is only available if a death occurs as a result of injury or accident, in which case it is doubtful whether the Unemployment Insurance Act would be effective anyway because in a great many of these compensation cases death is caused while the person concerned is on the job in which case, of course, there would be no eligibility for benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I notice one interesting point about this resolution. The hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) who proposed it specifically mentioned widows. As I say, that is commendable, and he is to be congratulated for having brought it to the attention of the house. However, there are many cases in close relation to this subject, which should, possibly, be given equal consideration. One that occurs to me is the case of a widower qualified to receive benefit, dies and has one or more small children. I think the situation there would be of the same nature as the one we have been considering, and the situation would perhaps
1772	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act be more difficult than the situation of a widow left with small children. Of course, there are many cases where as the result of the husband's inability to work due to physical handicaps the woman of the family is the only breadwinner. In the event of her death, if she were drawing unemployment insurance benefits at that time, you would have a widower who is unable to work and possibly dependent small children. I notice that these cases have not been taken into consideration in this resolution and it is a cause of some wonderment to me why this eventuality should not have been included.
This resolution-as is the case with one or two provisions now included in the regulations under the Unemployment Insurance Act-is in the nature of a definite departure from the original concept of unemployment insurance. The original idea which I think should be stressed and applied was unemployment insurance benefits for those people who through no fault of their own are out of work and available for work. The concept embodied in this resolution is a departure from that. As I said, some of the regulations under the act are in themselves a departure from the original intention of the legislation.
If we examine the regulations carefully I believe we will find that people who were drawing unemployment insurance benefits and are committed to hospitals or mental institutions probably through no fault of their own are still able to draw benefits and of course they are not available for work during that period of time.
The act is primarily designed to provide benefits to those who for reasons beyond their control have become unemployed but who are available to accept employment. Appealing as may be the subject matter of this resolution I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. member for Megantic that the unemployment insurance fund should be used for social welfare measures of this nature. I believe that financial assistance should be made available to widows where proved necessary in order to assist them to avail themselves of opportunities for adequate training to allow them to accept work in many of the fields where work of a certain nature is available.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir), many widows in Canada today are accepting employment in business establishments and stores. Some who were previously registered nurses are again taking up this vocation. Some are accepting employment in secretarial work and many others as teachers. In some cases I have found that they are very anxious to get into their line of work as quickly as possible.


Although I do not believe the unemployment insurance fund should be used for social welfare I reiterate that some assistance should be available to widows to allow them to take special training so they may avail themselves of work that may be available.
Over the years a great deal of criticism has been levelled at the present government by the opposition in regard to the present state of the unemployment insurance fund. I have definite opinions about the contribution made to the depletion of the fund by measures such as the one we are discussing at this time. Although I feel that the amount in the fund should at no time be the determining factor as to whether widows should be entitled to receive the benefits to which their deceased husbands would have been entitled, I am wondering why a measure of this nature is introduced at this time by an hon. member supporting a party that, when it formed the government and as a result of an economy not of its making, had the fund built up to a lofty figure and still did not consider at that time that it was necessary to bring in a measure such as the one before us for consideration today.
The plight of widows in financial straits today is no different from that of widows during the past 20 years and so I am wondering why this measure is being introduced at this time when all hon. members of this house are vitally concerned with the condition of the fund. I do not believe that the unemployment insurance fund is the means by which parliament should increase the social welfare benefits which must of necessity be increased in Canada and because I feel this is not the avenue we should follow in this respect I cannot support this resolution.


Mr. R. C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson). I felt that his closing remarks relating to the depletion of the fund were highly appropriate and pertinent in the discussion of this resolution. At the same time, like the hon. member for Churchill, I agree that this resolution contains much merit. The group of people it is designed to assist represent a classification that presently does not come under the fund and certainly consideration should be given to that question in this light. However, as the hon. gentleman pointed out, the idea behind this resolution is more in the field of welfare than in the field of insurance and should therefore be considered from that point of view.
In the past few years the unemployment insurance fund has been extended to assist groups and classifications of unemployed in fields not previously considered, including

fishermen and seasonal workers. This has placed the fund in a state of imbalance which has resulted in moneys being expended that were not accounted for when the original contributions were fixed as between employees, employers and government. As a result, great concern for the present state of the fund is being shown today by employees :hroughout the country.
In the light of these facts it is my opinion that consideration should be given to the set-ing up of a second fund, if that were feasible, in which could be placed such groups as seasonal workers, fishermen, farm labourers and possibly also married men who are seeking re-training in skilled occupations. Possibly this fund could be subsidized by the government, because all of these groups making contributions to it could not maintain it. Also possibly a percentage of the regular unemployment insurance fund could be used to help finance this second fund. However, I do believe that the significant amount that would have to go into it should come necessarily from the general revenue of the country. Everyone appreciates the problems that must befall the widow at the time of her husband's passing. I can think of nothing that is more tragic and no greater responsibility that is placed on a woman in her lifetime than in the losing of her husband.
It has been said that there are other means available to widows in those circumstances. However, we in government, I think better than anyone else, appreciate the red tape that is associated with any welfare payments that are available to the public. Certainly I will agree that in circumstances such as these civil servants make a determined effort to cut the amount of red tape to a minimum but red tape still exists. There are delays as well that make it most difficult, I would think, for a widow who was the wife of an ordinary wage earner, whose income through the years had been used up in providing the necessary essentials of life, leaving nothing available in the way of an estate to his family when he passed away. In these circumstances I would think that a payment such as is proposed in this resolution would be a Godsend to the wife for it would assist her to get over that period when things are most trying and allow her the opportunity to complete the necessary forms to enable her to qualify for other schemes which are available to her.
I cannot imagine how we could consider this as a proper type of measure to fall under unemployment insurance, as it was originally set up to establish protection for workers who through no fault of their own find themselves unemployed. It is a different type of scheme. Possibly the seasonal worker could also be considered to be not strictly within the original confines of the act and maybe the
Unemployment Insurance Act fisherman as well. Along with the fisherman, there is no reason why the agricultural farm labourer should not be in the same position.
All of these things seem to fit into a specific sphere that it was not the intention of the Unemployment Insurance Act originally to cover, but many of them do come under the act at the present time. If we were to place widows under the Unemployment Insurance Act we would just be going further in the direction that we find is causing us a great deal of difficulty today. What we must do is give consideration to a different scheme, something that will look after these most worthwhile categories but will not deplete the present fund beyond the point it has reached already.
Like the hon. member for Churchill, I wonder why the Liberal member did not bring this to the attention of his party and why they did not give consideration to it when they were in power. Certainly they were in power at a time when the fund was at a much higher level than it is at the present time. Undoubtedly it would have been much more feasible to undertake it at that time; that is, if they were considering this type of legislation or this type of individual. The fact is that probably the hon. member realizes that there has never been a government in power in Canada that has had a more humanitarian approach to the ordinary person in this country and more willing to listen and try to do something about the problems confronting the ordinary citizen than this government. Certainly, he was wise to bring this resolution before the house because he is sure, as are the widows of this country, that they will receive from this party and this government every possible consideration that can be given in the light of the existing situation.


Mr. W. L. M. Creaghan (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, in opening my remarks I feel it only proper to bring to the attention of the house the experience we had in the province of New Brunswick prior to June, 1957. If hon. members had had the privilege of attending political meetings in New Brunswick and had gone to a Liberal meeting they would have heard appeals from Liberal speakers addressed to the voters in this way: Please, do not vote us out of office or you will lose your unemployment insurance benefits; please do not vote us out of office or a Conservative government, when in power, will take away your family allowances and old age security payments. I believe that since then the people of Canada have been made well aware of the fact that this government believes in social security and social justice. Legislation passed during the past two and a half years should be ample proof of that fact.
1774	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act The resolution introduced by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) has a great deal of appeal to me as a member of parliament from one of the Atlantic provinces. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) put on the record the fact that the average weekly wage in British Columbia is as high as $83, while in the province of Prince Edward Island, according to the latest statistics, it is as low as $52. This fact encourages me to speak in favour of the resolution notwithstanding the fact that it was introduced by a member whose party had an opportunity for many years to introduce this type of assistance.
What I notice about the resolution is that perhaps it does not go far enough. I suggest to the mover of the resolution and to the house that the resolution may not be fair and just to all workers in the country. What about the widower? Should it not apply to him if his wife should die while entitled to benefits? What about single workers, male or female? They often leave unpaid debts when they die and many of them support parents who might be in need of assistance at that particular time just as much as a widow with children. What about a widower, whose wife has predeceased him, who dies and leaves infant children? There are also husbands to be considered, disability pensioners whose pensions are going to be increased but are still not entirely adequate or disabled husbands who because of their disabilities are dependent on wives who are gainfully employed.
All hon. members know that the unemployment insurance commission was established approximately 20 years ago. At the present time there are many local offices and about half a dozen regional offices located across the country. One of the large regional offices of the commission is located in the city of Moncton in the province of New Brunswick. This office serves the Atlantic provinces and because of the fact that large payments must necessarily be made to the residents of the so-called have-not provinces, the existence of unemployment insurance in the Atlantic provinces and in the other less fortunate areas of the country has done much to eliminate hardship and suffering. The existing payments from the fund, more than anything else in the form of social justice, have eliminated hardship, suffering and other unfortunate situations.
It is only in recent years that married women have been allowed to receive benefits. At the present time the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) has a study under way to consider the advisability of including farm labour and agricultural workers as contributors to the fund. When and if the scope of the act is enlarged to allow for this type of 

contributor we will then witness, as we do in the case of seasonal benefits, an additional annual drain on the fund.
At the present time the widows of Canada do not have uniform protection. We have heard mention today of the widow's allowance acts which are provincial statutes. In some of the provinces, particularly the prairie provinces, there are generous disability pensions whether the recipient is a widow or otherwise. Some of the provinces, particularly the four in the Atlantic region, have a maximum of $55 a month for disability pensions whether the person is a disabled woman or a former working man. It is near impossible for these provinces to increase these provincial pensions because of the fact that their revenue from taxation is somewhat restricted.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Smith) criticized the resolution because the mover did not include a time limit during which the benefits might be received. At the resolution stage I do not feel it is appropriate or necessary for the mover to include every aspect of his intentions. However, under resolution No. 44 the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) has certainly given the house a great deal of information as to his intentions. It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was not permitted to elaborate in his speech today on the intentions contained in his resolution. However, the principle was placed on the record and at this time I simply want to state that I am opposed to the principle of resolution No. 44 in so far as it would discriminate between residents of the poorer provinces.
Much has been said about the plight of widows. It seems to me that it would be relatively easy and would involve very little expense, if any, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to comply with this resolution. In recent years we have had an increase in old age security. I understand that the fund is almost carrying itself as a result of the amendment of the 2-2-2 formula to a 3-3-3 formula whereby 3 per cent of corporation taxes, 3 per cent of personal income taxes and 3 per cent of excise taxes are made available and allocated to the old age security fund.
By means of a simple regulation or amendment it should be possible to increase by a very small amount and allocate specifically a certain percentage of the contributions paid by the employer and employee in the purchase of unemployment insurance stamps. By doing so many more names might be added to the Martin statistics on unemployment. This could be remedied by putting widows who are not looking for work in a special category.

If the government should decide to implement the resolution, and to separate contributions in so far as widows are concerned, so as and to include these people in a separate category, perhaps at the same time the government should include other recipients in this classification. I suggest students attending technical institutes and vocational schools who can draw benefits although they are not, except by way of a fiction, available for work, and also older citizens in receipt of pensions.
I know a great many Canadian National Railways workers who on reaching age 65 retire on C.N.R. pensions. Because of the fact that they have made contributions to the unemployment insurance fund over the years they are permitted by law, and quite properly so, to draw benefits for a period up to one year. In many cases, however, they do not survive. If this particular type of employee on pension had lived his estate would have been increased in value to the extent of the benefits for one year. If one railway worker can draw benefits for one year while on pension I do not see why it would not be fair in the case of his co-worker who dies that his estate or family should receive similar treatment. I cannot see any difference.
Many workers in Canada have steady work year in and year out. Clerks in stores and office workers find steady work and contribute to the fund while so employed. On the other hand, some seasonal workers only work a minimum of 15 weeks during a one year period, make contributions of less than $1 a week and because of the legislation can draw seasonal benefits for a period of 13 weeks.
This does not appear to be fair in the eyes of the public. As a result, I want to say that I endorse the principle of this resolution and urge the government to implement it. The implementation of this resolution would not add very much to the administrative costs. It would not be necessary for the widows to register every week. They would simply prove that their husbands, had they lived, would have been entitled to benefits, prove the death and draw the amount to which the husband would have been entitled.
While speaking about widows I think it would be proper also for the members of this house to urge the Canadian Labour Congress, boards of trade and other national organizations to encourage amendments to many of the provincial statutes. As I stated earlier, in some provinces the widows are adequately protected by generous payments under widows' allowance legislation or under workmen's compensation. This is not the case in the poorer provinces.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, as a member from the Atlantic area I heartily endorse the
Old Age Assistance
resolution and note that most speakers coming from the poorer provinces have spoken today in favour of it.


Richard Devere Thrasher: Mr. Speaker, we have now spent several hours on this particular resolution. I think we have had an opportunity to discuss it very fully. There are other resolutions on the order paper that are of great merit and importance to the country, and it seems to me that the mood of the house is such that we should be getting on to those other resolutions.
Accordingly I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton West, that this debate be now adjourned.


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


Mr. Howard:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and debate adjourned.



OLD AGE ASSISTANCE


Hubert Badanai: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of extending old age assistance to unmarried women and widows of 60 years of age.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this would appear to be a day for the humanitarian instincts of hon. members to rise to the surface. I am sure that the spirits of many departed members must be hovering above us and looking benevolently on those who are in favour of the resolutions which were being produced here this afternoon, particularly the one introduced by my good friend the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge). The same spirits I am sure will be looking down with disfavour on those opposing these benevolent proposals.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, prior to the adjournment at six o'clock I had the privilege of moving the following resolution:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of extending old age assistance to unmarried women and widows of 60 years of age.
Apart from unemployment, health and hospital care, the area of social welfare

Old Age Assistance
which receives government attention in Canada today has to do with security for aged persons unable to find even casual employment. Of these, the group which has been overlooked is undoubtedly the unmarried woman and widow of 60 years of age and over. During the years that I served as mayor of Fort William I was frequently approached for assistance by individuals, some of whom were out of work, others were incapacitated in some way and unable to obtain or qualify for employment.
Compared with the present time those were prosperous years, but of all these unfortunate people those who looked the most pathetic and who made the greatest impression in their appeal were the women who had reached their sixtieth birthday and were unmarried or widows. Here was a type of citizen who found it most difficult to obtain work anywhere.
I recall the time in 1949 when our telephone system was converted from a manual operation to a dial system, with the result that upwards of 60 women operators were laid off. While the city, which owned and operated the telephone system, gave each a generous severance allowance in accordance with the number of years they had been employed, the older women soon found themselves out of money with no prospects of finding employment in other jobs. These women were unmarried or widows and several of them came to the city hall seeking relief from our welfare department.
I have had this resolution on the order paper for the last two years and during that time I have received hundreds of letters commending this motion. Many of these communications were of a heart-rending nature.
To better emphasize the need and to illustrate my point I have selected two cases which I will endeavour to present in a very brief form. One case concerned a Mrs. A, we will call her, aged 62 who had five children. Her husband, formerly employed as a boilermaker, died after a lengthy illness, leaving $1,500 in an insurance policy, which money was used up to pay funeral expenses and doctor's bills. Mrs. A has since been unable to find employment anywhere, except for odd times as a dishwasher, second cook and baby sitter. Her children are all married and raising families of their own. The only remaining source of income she can look to in order to live is charity or city welfare relief.
The other case to which I wish to refer concerns an unmarried woman of 59 years of age who had been a store clerk and is now working only part time. She is now living on unemployment insurance. She made the statement that she was bom six years

too late, for if she were 65 she could qualify for old age assistance. For a woman to admit that she would rather be six years older than she actually is can only mean that a fearful future is the compelling reason for such an admission.
One of the saddest sights to look at is a destitute woman whose bloom of youth has departed with the years and where the frailty of the human body has visibly set in. As a consequence she is invariably seized with a spirit of dejection the like of which can only be found in people whose creeping despair reflects the extremes of adversity.
In the statements of Liberal policy adopted by the national Liberal convention held in Ottawa in January, 1958, in the resolution on social security there is a provision for the extension of old age assistance to unmarried women and widows of 60 years of age. The critics of this proposed legislation may point out the cost to the government if the recommendations contained in this resolution were to be enacted; it will certainly cost money, but I dare say that with a close examination of the facts it can be done.
I would propose that the present contributions to the universal old age pension fund of 3 per cent of income, 3 per cent of corporation tax and 3 per cent of sales tax, which was increased from 2 per cent to 3 per cent in 1959, be increased to 3J per cent. This would enable the government to not only provide a pension for unmarried women and widows of 60 years of age, but would leave enough to boost the present pension of $55 a month.
At the same time, a higher contribution would have an anti-inflationary effect, thus keeping the value of the pension more stable, and with the development of the country and rise in national production it can be expected that pensions will be increased again in the future.
If and when the government proposes some changes in the old pension scheme, such as the suggestion made by Professor Robert Clark of the University of British Columbia, who made a deep study of the American scheme which is financed by workers and mangement contributions, it would be logical for the government to add the contributory phase so that pensioners could reap the benefit of their own contributions. The introduction of a contributory plan would make possible a reduction from the age of 70 to 65 for men and for women in general to the age of 60.
In any contributory plan, however, pensions should be made portable so that the worker would be able to bring to the new job the pension benefits saved during his or her earlier employment. This would reduce the

pension costs to the new employer and make him more ready to hire the older man or the older woman. I wish to make it clear that by portable pension I mean that all the contributions made by both the employee and the employer are to be transferred from the former job to the new job.
The prospects for the future of our country are much brighter than they appear on the horizon at the present time, and with faith and good management there should be no depression in the vision of Canadians anywhere. Our country is going to grow and increase in wealth beyond the optimist's wildest dream, and it should be our purpose to make life a little bit easier for those who have made their contribution to the sum total of our national heritage and whose fortunes have not been commensurate with what they gave Canada. To these citizens, a reasonable standard of living should be provided by the nation.
Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Iran, Israel, the Union of South Africa and the United Kingdom; all these countries have set the minimum pensionable age for women at 60, five years lower than the age for men. In countries such as Brazil, the Dominican Republic, France, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, Thailand and Turkey, both men and women retire and receive pensions at 60 years of age. In Russia and Japan men receive pensions at 60 and women receive pensions at 55. I have taken these facts from the International Labour Review of October 1955. In 1956 the United States brought the retirement age for women down from 65 to 62, the retirement age for men remaining at 65 in that country. Here I wish to quote from the same review at page 266:
It is very important for the pensionable age to be adjusted to the security needs of older workers, since the essential purpose of old age pensions is to deal with such needs. .. The two main causes of involuntary loss of income on the part of aging workers are loss of ability to work and loss of ability to find a job even while still capable of working. Employment statistics often indicate that women tend to encounter difficulty in remaining in employment at an earlier age than men. Old age benefits have as a purpose not only tne aiding of disabled and unemployed older workers. They should also enable all aged workers, if they wish to enjoy a period of leisure and rest following a long working life, to do so.
In answer to an inquiry sent out by the commission on the status of women of the United Nations economic and social council, one international group replied that some of its affiliates did consider earlier retirement for women, and I quote:
A fair compensation for the special burdens connected with motherhood and care for the family carried by the majority of women, a burden which is particularly heavy for the great mass of women who live in poor economic circumstances.
Old Age Assistance
Since age of retirement has a direct relationship to age of pension, the same reason could be given for women receiving the old age pension at an earlier age.
How can we justify the retirement of air force officers at various ages between 45 and 50 with pensions up to $6,000 and $7,000 a year at a time when most of these men have an opportunity of resuming a gainful career in other fields, while at the same time denying a miserly pension of $55 per month to destitute women of 60 years? I do not criticize a policy which was designed to guarantee certain changes and advancement for men in the services in time of war. I merely wish to call attention to a situation which should be rectified by bringing about a policy more in keeping with the times.
It could also be argued that it is possible to establish flexible pension provisions between pensionable age and retirement age. The method of applying this formula would be a reduction of pension when the person concerned continues to work.
It has also been said unemployment insurance can take care of persons when they are not of retirement age. My answer is that unemployment insurance can only deal with short term periods. Unemployment insurance is not organized to handle the problem of semipermanent unemployment because of age. Hence, old age pension benefits must be adopted to fill the gap.
It must be realized that the principal factor influencing the age at which men or women need pensions should be the difficulty they meet in finding and retaining employment as they advance in age. There is hardly any need for me to re-emphasize the accepted fact that, with the exception of nurses and domestics, women reaching 60 years are the first casualties in the labour market.
This resolution, however, does not recommend a pension for all women of 60 years of age. It limits the benefit to unmarried women and widows. However, I would certainly have no objection if the government would extend the same benefit to all women of 60 years of age regardless of marital status.
In a summary prepared by the United Nations economic council commission on the status of women the suggestion was made that if the age were lowered with respect to the eligibility of women for pensions professional women would be placed at a disadvantage to the point that an employer might be inclined to discriminate against them and dismiss a woman in preference to a man because she would be entitled to a pension. Another point made was that employers might replace older women workers with younger employees who would work for

Old Age Assistance
less wages even though the older women were quite capable of performing their work.
These and other objections are superficial as can be seen from the action already taken by several nations which I have already mentioned. In spite of arguments to the contrary, 19 nations of the world have lowered to 60 the eligibility age of women with respect to pension benefits and no less than 4 countries in the western world are paying pension benefits to women at age 55, namely Italy, Japan, Panama and Argentina. This by no means exhausts the list.
The humanitarian aspect of this resolution is such as should move not only this government but even a heart of stone. Its implementation would bring hope where there is now dejection, would lift the spirit of a human being from the dark recesses of despair to the heights of light and contentment in the declining years of a woman's life.
In conclusion, I express the hope that every hon. member of this house irrespective of where he sits will want to be counted as favouring this resolution not because of any political consideration but because he supports the view that beneath the exterior of a poor, destitute woman beats a heart as noble as any of those whose fortunes enable them to bedeck themselves with the finery which wealth can provide.
(Translation):


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank and congratulate the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Ba-danai) who amazed us with his pathos and in particular with the interest he showed for a category of citizens who seem to deserve official attention.
May I also thank him for having touched lightly-without political passion, at the beginning of his remarks-on the fact that Canada looks prosperous to him. We, on this side of the house, have never doubted it, and I could not help wishing that his party's horsemen of the Apocalypse were there on the front benches to listen carefully to his remarks.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: We will be in office a year from now.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, our friends in the opposition are putting forward a measure which, I think, has some merit. As a representative of the working class, of a constituency which has experienced misery, even during the most prosperous war years, when our Liberal friends were in office-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: You should try to find better arguments than those.


Georges-J. Valade: -I may say that I agree with the resolution now being considered. However, I wish the resolution went further and were considered without any political consideration.
I carefully followed this afternoon the remarks made about resolution No. 3, which has fairly close connection with that of the hon. member for Fort William.
At that moment I heard my good friend, the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets)-who delights in applying a few nicknames to me-make some remarks of a political nature. Well, Mr. Speaker, I will try to discuss the problem objectively and submit to the house the social considerations I intend to put forward.
However, may I revert to the argument which the hon. member for Fort William most eloquently put forward when, in his opening remarks, he mentioned the case of the 60 year old Mrs. A who was utterly destitute.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I myself have in mind an identical case which was brought to my attention, but the person concerned was only 59 years old. Consequently, I wonder why the hon. member for Fort William put in that restriction in his resolution, and set a 60 year limit instead of extending it further.
Mr. Speaker, in this resolution I do not like the words "old age assistance". I would have preferred a more eloquent expression to recognize, as stated by the sponsor of this resolution, the merits and commendable contributions made to our country by those elderly people. I feel that to consider as old someone who is 60 is not in keeping with the respect I have for that category of people. As I say, I would have preferred a much more eloquent description.
Mr. Speaker, if the principle is basically excellent, it should be fully studied, for we would not like to see inadequate proposals or resolutions introduced in this house only for the sake of discussion, which could be used as a political stepping-stone and which would not have the immediate result of bringing any relief to the people concerned.
This seems to be somewhat characteristic of any legislation put forward by our friends opposite. For instance, when the unemployment insurance act was passed, great claims were made about the social and politico-social import of that legislation.

But it required the coming into power of a Conservative government, conscious of its responsibilities, to correct and amend that legislation, and adapt it to the requirements of our working class, by extending the benefits and making them more readily available to those who needed them.
The same, Mr. Speaker, could be said about the old age assistance act. There again, as stated by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) we have a measure, a piece of social legislation introduced by the Liberal party, but which, once again, had to be amended and improved by the Conservative party so as to make it beneficial for the people of Canada.
You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, what meager pittance our senior citizens were receiving under the Liberal regime.
We amended that legislation and increased the old age pension from $40 to $55.


Mr. Lessard:: 


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Amend yourselves, amend yourselves.


Georges-J. Valade: I think my hon. friends are mistaken.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: No, it was $46.


Georges-J. Valade: The pension was raised from $40 to $46, and we increased it to $55. That is a plain fact which our friends do not like to hear, but I believe it is my duty to point to the act itself. I would ask our friends to look up the statutes and see for themselves, as I did, the substantial improvements which the Conservative party had to introduce in their so-called social legislation.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: One should be fair.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, in order to protect the public and certain classes of people, a legislation must be efficient and adequate. The needs of such classes must be carefully considered. There should be no groping in the dark when dealing with such significant legislation as this.
Since I have been sitting in this house, 1 heard on many occasions, little else but criticism from the opposition with regard to the enormous deficits registered each year by the Conservative government. As for the Liberals they boasted of having left the country with a surplus of nearly $900,000,000.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: It is true, it is true.


Georges-J. Valade: And all that time all our senior citizens were getting was a pension of $40 a month.


H.-Pit Lessard: Sorry, $46.
Old Age Assistance


Georges-J. Valade: Forty dollars. The pension had started at $40. This proves, therefore, that when the Liberal party was in power, and the coffers were full, there was no thought at the time of the existence in our society of destitute classes needing special attention. It is then that the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) should have introduced this legislation.


An hon. Member:: Quite true.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, with surplusses in their coffers, the Liberals preferred to finance the pipe-line.
As soon as the Conservative party came to power, it gave thought to improving social legislation and helping destitute Canadians. My hon. friend from Fort William should not forget that all provinces have some form of public and social assistance legislation. We too, in the province of Quebec, have a similar law. I refer to statutes 59-60, 8-9 Elizabeth II, chapter 73 and if you will allow me, I shall quote from section 22, as amended in March 1960:
May be admitted to public assistance institutions, at the expense of the government, municipalities or public assistance institutions, needy persons who provide the authorities of the public assistance institution where they are admitted with evidence of their state of destitution, in accordance with the provisions of this act, as well as evidence of the incapacity of persons responsible for providing them with food or care.
There are other paragraphs dealing also with assistance given by municipalities to destitute persons, through the medium of the province. The federal government already contributes at the rate of 50 per cent.
From the bottom of my heart, I sympathize enormously with the intention which prompted the hon. member for Fort William to introduce this resolution. However, I doubt that this resolution has been given adequate and detailed consideration.
I should like to see the day, and I am sure the Conservative party will do everything in its power to achieve that end, when parliament introduces legislation to eliminate all human misery in Canada. I wonder why the hon. member for Fort William put a 60 year limit on the proposal he submitted to the house. Misery knows no age, regardless of matrimonial status, condition or sex.
I should have liked a motion introduced that would take into account not the age of certain people but their circumstances.

Old Age Assistance
I appreciate that such a measure would perhaps appeal to certain newspapermen, sympathetic to a cause foredoomed to failure, the cause of the Liberal party.
I realize that in order to make up for the ill-starred exhibition staged by the Liberals in Ottawa early in January-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The hon. member can hardly talk of something he does not know, since he was not there.


Georges-J. Valade: I can understand that the Liberals, in their attempt to deceive the electorate, proposed resolutions that were inadequate and discriminatory to other categories of needy people. Nevertheless, this legislation is not consistent with social justice because, while providing for the needs of some people, it overlooks the needs of others.
Mr. Speaker, I would be in favour of social legislation which would recognize the need for assistance of all categories of the needy, regardless of age or of marital status. The proposal being submitted today is obviously only fragmentary, it is makeshift legislation and offers no real solution.
The Conservative party has never favoured a group of individuals at the expense of some other group, as Mr. C. D. Howe used to do.
The Conservative party has gone the Liberals one better in the field of social legislation, and this puts the Liberals in an uneasy situation before the voters.
Human misery is not a problem that comes solely under federal jurisdiction. It is a problem that every class of our society must consider. There are social groups, welfare organizations; there are also municipal and provincial governments, which also have their responsibilities as far as social legislation and public assistance are concerned. Municipalities and provinces must also submit their problems in that field.
The Conservative party will adopt social assistance programs that will help all the destitutes; all classes of the needy will benefit from those programs. Then, when I go back with pride and dignity to the electors of my riding, I will be able to tell them that when I took part in the debate on their miseries, I did not do so in order to make political hay and to make a few newspaper headlines.
Mr. Speaker, those people know that, when the time comes to accept, adopt or propose legislation to eliminate human misery, I will be among those who cast an affirmative vote.


Mr. Rodolphe Leduc (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to offer my sincere congratulations to the member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) for the resolution he submitted to the house and which reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of extending old age assistance to unmarried women and widows of 60 years of age.
I agree with the hon. member that if there is a group deserving of our consideration, it is indeed that of widows and single women.
During my political career, and more particularly in recent years, I have met many widows and single women who asked me: "Why do you not introduce legislation that would allow us to get our pension at the age of 60?" Then as now those women were asking for a pension at 60. Why? Because in most cases, they cannot find employment and in many cases widows, for instance, who have raised large families, are unable to do the work they are offered, I feel that society must assist those needy persons by means of a pension.
Besides, the Liberal party has always been concerned with the welfare of the needy. The social security legislation now on the statute books shows clearly that the Liberal party has always sought to help people most in need of assistance.
Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign of 1958, on February 10, 1958, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) made a speech entitled "Social Security". About old age assistance, he had this to say:
Unmarried women and widows will be able to get old age assistance benefits at the age of 60 instead of 65.
Well, that suggestion, with many others in the Liberal platform, was laid before the electors, but it was not approved by the majority.
However, to show that the Liberal party has its heart set on giving such pensions to needy persons at age 60, let me quote clause 25 of the Liberal party platform during the provincial election held in the province of Quebec last June:
Widows and unmarried women will be eligible, starting at age 60, for the pension now being paid to persons aged 65 to 70.
I am happy to see, Mr. Speaker, that an amount of $5,000,000 has been included in the estimates of the Liberal government of Jean Lesage for 1961-62.

The Liberal party in Quebec has found an expression which should certainly please my friend, the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) who does not like the expression "old age pension". Here we speak of "allowances for widows and spinsters aged 60 to 65."
Mr. Speaker, I am not pleading here for the widows and the unmarried women in my province-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I-


Rodolphe Leduc: -because in a few months hence, they will be receiving the pension provided for such persons aged 60 to 65.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?


Rodolphe Leduc: -I am rather speaking on behalf of all women, all the widows and unmarried women in the other provinces who do not and may not for a few years perhaps, enjoy the benefits of such a social welfare measure as the one which the Quebec government will be putting into effect during this session or the next.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?


Rodolphe Leduc: I should like to see the federal government pass a bill under which all widows and unmarried women in need would receive a pension equal to the one which is now provided for persons aged 65 to 70.
Mr. Speaker, the government should, in my opinion, give serious consideration to this resolution and bring forward, during the present session, a bill providing help for all widows and unmarried women in Canada.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member for Gatineau?


Mr. Denis:: Later.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I put a question to the hon. member for Gatineau?


Rodolphe Leduc: Yes.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Could he tell me whether the Quebec government is going to levy a special tax as in the case of hospital insurance.


Azellus Denis: Ask Mr. Barrette.


Rodolphe Leduc: Not being the minister of
finance of the province of Quebec, I cannot answer that question.


Azellus Denis: People will be required to buy shares of the natural gas corporation.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to
Old Age Assistance
listen to the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) and to the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc) who has commended the legislation scheduled to be introduced in the Quebec legislature.
I was right in putting that question to him earlier, because people in Quebec are a bit uneasy, and are wondering if there will not be a special tax levied to finance that increase in pensions, for they have already had their fingers burned. In fact, a provincial tax is being levied now to provide for hospital insurance. That is why I am putting that question, because people in Quebec are wary of their present government.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member seems to have got into another jurisdiction. We are debating matters within federal jurisdiction.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I carefully read the resolution introduced by the hon. mem-per for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) and I also listened very closely to his speech. In principle, his resolution is excellent, but in actual fact, one always wonders how to finance such a plan, where to find the money required, because, after all, the taxpayer always has to pay, and it is always the people of Canada who have to finance the social measures introduced in this house to improve their condition.
I have a suggestion to make, Mr. Speaker. It is common knowledge that I have put on the order paper a bill for the purpose of establishing a national lottery, the receipts of which are intended to raise family allowances, with rates increasing in proportion to the number of children, and also to raise pensions.
Would it not be advisable that the Canadian government consider the possibility of establishing a national lottery? I should like to point out also that certain newspapers mentioned this lately. I am thinking in particular of La Presse which ran several articles on the matter, and is now conducting a survey in this regard. Moreover, I must remind you that this project has the support of labour unions.
I am not against a provincial lottery, of course, provided there would be one in all provinces. Mr. St. Laurent himself objected

Old Age Assistance
to a lottery in only one province. Why? Because, supposing there were a lottery in Ontario only, and not in the other provinces, money from Quebec and other provinces would pour into Ontario to the prejudice of the other provinces.
I wonder whether it would not be important that the Canadian government consider the advisability of setting up a federal lottery, whose receipts would serve to improve our pension plan, and to raise pensions.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is now dealing with a federal-provincial lottery. I should like to call your attention to the fact that a bill, namely Bill C-18, for the purpose of establishing a Canadian lottery is standing in his name on the order paper. In my opinion, the hon. member has no right to anticipate, and should confine his remarks to the resolution now under discussion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Of course, the hon. member may not discuss at length the establishment of a lottery, national or otherwise. Nevertheless, I believe it is proper to suggest that the purpose of the resolution could be financed through a lottery. I feel however that he has said enough on this matter and I would ask him now to suggest other means of financing, if he has any other to suggest.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to point out certain methods of financing. I might have been out of order at the beginning, but one should not be content to advocate a social measure. Also to be considered is the method of financing. That is why I made that suggestion to the house. I hope it will be possible to consider that plan in a not too distant future.
Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to call the attention of the house to the bill standing in my name on the order paper.


Mr. J. E. Bissonneile (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to seize this opportunity to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for having sponsored such a resolution. I am not so good at making a speech and I have no intention of wasting the time of the house by delivering a long one. However these measures are such commendable ones that I would not want to miss this opportunity of congratulating those who have decided at last to take notice of the ills of the people and to present resolutions such as the No. 3 resolution put forward this afternoon

by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) and the one which is now before the house and which calls for the extension of old age assistance to unmarried women and widows of 60 years of age. Such measures appeal to me.
Speaking as a physician, I may say that in the course of forty years of general practice, I have been witness time and again to the destitution and the extreme poverty not only of unmarried women and widows of 60 years of age but also of widows as young as 40, 35 and often 30.
I have therefore congratulations to extend to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) and also to the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc) who seconded the motion. However, I have to blame them for one thing and that is for not going far enough.
I agree that we must help those in need. We are here for that. We are here to make laws for the people, to extend to them a helping hand in order not to be beaten in two or three years time by our opponents for having failed to care for the ills and the problems of the people, and for having withdrawn from them.
We want to live up to the excellent reputation which is ours. If we were elected in 1958 by such a great majority, it is because our program took into account the ills of the people. That is the reason why we are members of a government such as this one.
As a physician who sympathizes with the ills of the people, I am happy to say to my hon. friends in the opposition that I am in favour of welfare measures, but I must add: "You do not go far enough. Be more generous." I would suggest, even to the sponsor of the motion to present it again one day and to make it as generous as I would like to see it. In the meantime, I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) to go on with the assistance he is already giving, pending this more generous measure that will come from our hon. friends in the opposition. I would ask him to continue to the people the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act amended in 1957, while we are waiting for this more generous legislation that will perhaps be proposed by our hon. friends from the opposition.
I therefore urge them to be generous and bring relief to those aged 60, 40 and 30 years, and more particularly to the widows who, being left without means, with a family to

support, and therefore being unable to work outside, need a generous piece of legislation such as only this government has been able to enact since taking over.
In fact, did this government not, as soon as it took office, raise the old age security pension from $46 to $55 a month, until it is hiked to $75 at an early date. I suggest that this government take this step and at the next general election I shall be happy to ask my government to double, if necessary, for people who deserve it, the rate of old age security pensions and widows' pensions, particularly for those who are suffering hardship because of their age and family obligations, and who are unable to earn a living.
The people will certainly realize and note that while we have no monopoly on social welfare, because politics should not be mixed with welfare, we do have, however, a monopoly on common sense, balance and private initiative. The people will also realize that a government should legislate and govern with the money from the people, with people's money, something we should always keep in mind. We might also recall at this time that the Leader of the Opposition recently blamed us for spending those $500 million of savings put aside by the Liberals when the people had just upbraided the latter for not looking after them. Today he asks us to lead the country into debt through deficits and to help the people.
Well, with all this good advice, you may be assured that I, for one, on behalf of my constituency of Quebec West, and as a medical doctor, have spent all my life trying to relieve human suffering, shall commend my government and urge its members to keep up its splendid policies, its good work for the protection of the poor, the sick, the afflicted, the suffering and the needy.
(Text):


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) for introducing this resolution. It is a fact that unmarried women and widows of 60 years of age and over constitute a class of persons who are very vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the economic facts of life.
It is difficult to find employment at that age and they must often be faced with difficult problems, problems which none of the existing federal social legislation can help solve. It seems to me this is an omission which ought to be rectified. Our nation has
Old Age Assistance
an enviable record in social and welfare legislation, but time brings changes, shows up weaknesses and makes evident where additional legislation can be brought in to round-out the social benefits and the welfare system which we have.
The resolution which is now before the house seems to me to be one of these things, the result of recognition of a need. It asks the government to consider the advisability of extending old age assistance to unmarried women and widows of 60 years of age and over. This resolution seems to me to be a worthy one and I hope it will be given serious and sympathetic consideration by the government.
In closing these brief remarks I would like to make one observation. I thought this resolution was as non-political as a resolution could be, but the ensuing debate has shown how wrong I was. For instance, I learned with a great deal of interest and dismay from the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) that the social legislation of the previous Liberal administration was nothing but wicked political devices, if I understood him correctly, which were transformed by some strange alchemy of Toryism into welfare measures.
I doubt whether the record of history will agree with this interpretation.


Mr. G. C. Fairfield (Porlage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure everyone must be very sympathetic to a resolution such as this put forward by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai). However, I think there are many questions that should be asked. The hon. member has brushed some of the questions aside as being not fundamental and of no value in any argument. For instance, there is the question that all widows with or without jobs, all unmarried women with or without jobs should have a pension at the age of 60. He brought up this matter of professional women practically forced into retirement at the age of 60, and the employed women whose employers desire younger ladies and may have a very good excuse to put the older women out of work. These are questions that, despite his quick desire to brush them aside as having no meaning at all, should be answered; and I have not as yet heard any answer from the opposition benches.
The hon. member states that the Liberal convention in 1958 first passed this resolution. I am quite sure that if our friends in the opposition thought it would gain them a few more votes they would lower the age to 50 and raise the so-called baby bonus to

Old Age Assistance
40. Therefore we would have a gap of ten years for the New Party to fill up. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) stated that this was being looked after by the new government in Quebec as no other government in Canada is doing. I think possibly he does not know about our Conservative government in Manitoba. In 1959 they passed an act, one of the sections of which reads:
-the government of Manitoba and each of the several municipalities in the province may take such measures as are necessary for the purpose of ensuring that no resident of Manitoba, including an Indian .. . lacks
(a)	such things, goods, and services as are essential to his health and well-being, including food, clothing, shelter, and essential surgical, medical, optical, dental and other remedial treatment, care, and attention: and
(b)	an adequate funeral upon his death.
It goes on to state in this act that they will have a certain means test, of course, and that the social service officers will decide, through the minister of health and welfare, who shall come under the act. They even have an appendix to the act stating what are reasonable amounts for fuel, food, and so on. Saskatchewan has one of these social security acts, and I am sure other provinces have also.
So this is a statement which the hon. member has just drawn from out of the blue without any backing whatsoever. Our people in Manitoba do not particularly need any assistance, whatever the other provinces may need, in so far as unmarried women and widows of the age of 60 are concerned.
In the field of federal social security we have also passed an amendment to the unemployment relief and assistance act and it shows in the annual report for 1959 that after this amendment was passed we had almost a doubling of the amount of unemployment assistance from December of 1958 to January of 1959. I am sure that a great many of these people were 65 years of age. I will admit that. But there are a great many people who have come under this act and who have been helped by the federal government.
I wish to remind hon. members of the opposition of the words of their leader who stated something that I think they examine every time they go through a convention. It was put on the record on July 4, 1960, at page 5666. This is what he said, as reported in Hansard:
May I conclude, Mr. Speaker, with one or two very general and very short observations. In recent years the asserted claims of the individual on the state have been matched by his protests against the state's interference in his activities and in his private life, an interference which his own demands have made easier and in some cases inevitable. The state cannot provide services and support for the citizen without acquiring the power

and authority which is necessary and desirable for that purpose. Put it another way; more social security, desirable and even necessary though that is, may often be the means to greater state powers, and the latter persistently press against the freedom and rights of citizens who are to benefit from these powers.
It is true, that the citizens who receive this social security are helped, as indeed many of them should be helped, but those citizens who have to pay for it should have some representation in this House of Commons and should have someone to speak for them. I think the words of their leader should be taken well to heart by members of the opposition, namely that if you ask for social security you must ask for control. If, for example, this resolution was passed, there would in fact be some control over the employment of women who had reached the age of 60. We know that many of these women are deserving. Notwithstanding that, many are covered at the present time by provincial statutes and many, too, are quite capable of carrying on their work past the age of 60. They have many years of good work still within their power. So although I say that I am in favour of a resolution which specifies help where there is need, I certainly am not in favour of this resolution as it is presently worded.


Murdo William Martin: I see that a noticeable improvement has been made during my absence from the house this afternoon. We now have before us another resolution, put forward by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) who is also a member of the Liberal party, and I must say it is a marked improvement on the resolution we had before us earlier today. This resolution is one which we can support fully, because unlike the wonderful province of Manitoba, unlike the wonderful situation which was expounded by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Fairfield), there are many women affected by this resolution and who need this type of help in the province of Ontario and, I am sure, in many other provinces. I am even inclined to believe that if the hon. member looks hard enough he may find a few in that category in the province of Manitoba as well.
This resolution does point to a serious problem in our society, and that is the situation faced by unmarried women or widows at the age of 60 and over. While the employment situation is as it is in this country at the present time the people in this category certainly find themselves in an unenviable position. This might not be so bad if there were full employment and if jobs were available for everyone who wanted to work. Unfortunately, that is not the situation today,

and I am afraid there have been few occasions in the history of this country when such a situation existed. Consequently women who reach the age of 60 find themselves in a very disadvantageous position on the labour market. However, I should like to make it clear that we support this measure only as a stopgap measure and not as a real answer to the situation. In fact, this is just another patch on the leaky tire of our social legislation in this country.
I believe the solution to this problem is one which we have suggested many times in this house, namely the implementation of a portable pension plan with some kind of joint survivorship clause so that if a woman should reach the pensionable age while single the pension for which she had worked all her life could be granted to her. If, on the other hand, the woman concerned was left a widow, her husband having worked over the years, then through this portable pension plan capable of being carried from job to job, and through the joint survivorship clause in the plan, her financial difficulties would be overcome and there would be no need to add another patch to the worn-out old tire of our social legislation, I think the fact that we have so many of these resolutions, each dealing with a certain weakness, a certain fault in our present social legislation, only bears out our contention that it is time we really tackled this job and came up with a satisfactory over-all solution to it.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, today is a memorable date for the official opposition, two of their resolutions are actually being discussed at one sitting, on a Monday, which is private members' day. That is indeed a very rare occurrence.
These two resolutions deal with social security benefits. As I say, the fact that both resolutions were submitted by Liberal members certainly creates a precedent.
Mr. Speaker, we are very often accused of bitterly criticizing while not submitting any suggestions nor realistic recommendations to the government.
Well, today and every day, we formally deny these accusations. We have submitted two significant resolutions. If this government were to accept them, I would think that this country's position would become much more hopeful than it is at present.
Before starting to discuss the resolution itself, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out a few remarks made by some hon. members on the government side.
The hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade), told us in his speech, that in 1957 when our
Old Age Assistance
term came to an end, we had a surplus of $900,000,000. Of course, here as on other occasions, the hon. member is mistaken. First of all, we are dealing with the unemployment insurance fund which if I remember correctly, in 1957, amounted to $927,000,000.
That position is understandable. At that time, the unemployment situation was not as serious as today, when it is draining away substantial amounts of money every year. That year, the surplus was $152 million. It was put aside, as it always was in the past. The Liberal government was accumulating moneys that the Conservative government now spends the way we all know.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Mary, like many others, referred quite often to the last Liberal convention. As you know, the convention adopted a resolution to the same effect as this one.
It seems that this Liberal convention which drew so much attention in Canada, has given some concern to our hon. friends of the government. The evidence is that they often refer to it.
The hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Bissonnette), whose experience and sincerity we respect, said he was in favour of this resolution. He even wished it was more generous. May I remind the hon. member that he is a member of a government with the strongest parliamentary majority ever since confederation. During his speech, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) was in his seat. May I ask him why this project is not carried out if he thinks it is so good? Why does he not try to awake his minister who should have expressed his views on this resolution? Why not awake him and have him recognize the merit of this resolution?
I notice that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not in his seat at this moment.
(Text):
I wish to tell the minister that I observe he is keeping a very troubled silence. I think when such a proposal is under discussion the hon. gentleman should let us know where the government stands instead of sitting idly by while this measure is talked out by Conservative members. If the minister evades his responsibility, keeps his silence and does not tell us the position of the government before the expiration of our time at 10 o'clock this evening, we will let the

Old Age Assistance
Canadian people decide in due time what they think of this silence and evasion of responsibility.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, the hon. member for Quebec West also dealt with social security projects. He said that on occasions his party might propose several projects of this kind to the people.
May I point out to him that if the hospital insurance act is now in force in the province of Quebec, while it had been refused by his former provincial leader Mr. Duplessis, it is due to a Liberal premier.
It is appropriate also to reply to hon. Conservative members today who try to pose as advocates of social security, that in this very house, no later than in 1944, their former political leaders opposed the adoption of certain social measures, such as family allowances.


An hon. Member:: That is true.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker there is no doubt that during the last 25 years, considerable progress has been achieved in the struggle against misery and insecurity. Those things which seemed a little bit ridiculous and impossible at that time have been achieved since.
But there is still too much misery and distress around us not to give consideration to extending further the scope of social security.
When we deal with social security, I believe we should set our mind on providing a minimum standard of living to our citizens.
Today, with regard to this resolution concerning 60-year old single women and widows, I suggest-like the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai), whom I congratulate for his action which in fact gives effect to a resolution adopted at the recent Liberal convention-that such protection is needed by that group of citizens.
I am particularly interested in seeing it adopted.
I know that in my own constituency it will bring relief and a greater measure of welfare to a class of citizens who so far have not enjoyed any government protection.
I would be remiss in failing to mention the fact that in the province of Quebec, during the next session-there was something in the newspapers about this legislation-measures will be introduced to provide more help for unmarried women and widows of 60 or more.
I wish at this point to commend and give credit to the premier of the province of Quebec who has so much to do because very

little has been done so far in that province. He tackled his important task splendidly and with great energy.
Mr. Speaker, the principle of this resolution commends itself to the hon. members and I hope the government will tell us before the end of this sitting whether it supports the principle and whether it is prepared to help that class of unmarried women and widows.
I sincerely hope that the minister who was here a few moments ago will break his silence and let us know where he stands.


Mr. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak tonight. But listening to the Liberal members, one might be led to believe that they alone are responsible for whatever good there is in the field of protection, etc.-


Azellus Denis: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Liberal members are a bit fidgety. When they calm down, perhaps they will be able to listen more placidly to what we have to tell them.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the present Conservative government has nothing to learn, in the field of social security, from the Liberals who ran the country for years and were finally driven out of office on account of their silence in the house-there are still a few of them left-and on account of their lack of action.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to take the 1957 campaign, the Liberals claimed it was impossible to increase the level of old age security pensions because it would jeopardize the economy of this country and because it would be dangerous to pass such a measure. Today, when there is nothing they can do, they want us to believe that if they returned to power, old age security pensions, pensions for needy mothers and all kinds of pensions would be doubled and even tripled if necessary.
But hon. members opposite need not get excited, whenever old age pensions and pensions for the blind and widows are raised, they will again be raised by a Conservative government.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to take a few minutes of the time of this house to examine certain facts. In 1956-57, under a Liberal government, the country paid out

$379 million in old age security pensions. No doubt you know that under the present Conservative government, we pay out to older people the amount of $575 million a year. I therefore ask Liberal members who, when they were in power, did nothing but make long-winded speeches, to explain the increase granted under a Conservative government. As it would take them a little too long to find the answer to this mathematical problem, I shall tell them that we raised old age pensions by as much as 51 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, we Conservatives do not say: We shall do this or that. On the contrary, we raised the level of pensions and when circumstances allow, we shall raise them again; the Conservative government will be the first to propose such a move. Again I say we have no lesson to take from people who did nothing for 21 years and just let things go their merry way. We are moving forward and shall continue in that direction.
Referring to social security payments, we find that our Liberal friends have paid out $1.3 billion in the year 1956-57-


Mr. Benidickson:: I beg your pardon?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: $1.3 billion. Under a Conservative government, in 1959-60, $2 billion were paid out.
It is easy for the Liberals today to promise something, when they know in advance that they will not have to fulfil their promises.
You, Liberals, could very well promise the moon, and that would not make things any more difficult for you, since you will not be required to fulfil your promises. Just go ahead, take the floor one after the other and try to make yourselves a little political capital.


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member explain the difference between one million and one billion?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I recall that a while ago, during a certain trial, a certain gentleman was very much confused between millions and billions. So I would not like to follow the example of that gentleman, and I will limit myself to my own speech, without having anything whispered to me by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska. Besides, I think it would be to his own interest to learn the difference between one billion and one million, for he could then reply himself to that question.
90205-6-113
Old Age Assistance
Mr. Speaker, were I sure not be called to order, I would recall that it was under a Conservative government that taxes were cut. That is our way of showing how we keep close to the people.
That is, Mr. Speaker, a fact that everyone knows. The Liberals themselves have recognized it, because they explained their defeat both in 1957 and in 1958, by saying they had stood too far away from the people. They are still very much aloof from the people, and as time goes, they will stand more and more aloof, while we are going to propose constructive measures which will be to the people's benefit.
Mr. Speaker, as I was listening a moment ago to the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc), I thought for a while that he was going to propose to the house that 55 year-old people be granted family allowances and that those same persons also get the old age security pension. If he had carried on in that direction, I think he would have said so.
His remarks reminded me of an editorial published in Le Devoir, entitled: "Once a drunkard, always a drunkard".
Such an attitude very well shows that while listening to Liberals' speeches, we should always bear in mind that article of Le Devoir: "Once a drunkard, always a drunkard". This leads us to think, to ponder those words of our Liberal friends, and to remember that we must take them, as is often said, if my memory serves me right, "with a grain of salt".
Well, hon. members of the opposition, just go on dreaming; that suits you very well. As for us, our deeds speak for themselves.
(Text):


William Moore Benidickson: Will the hon. member for whom I have great regard permit a question? (Translation):
I regret that my French is not too good- (Text):
My question is, will the hon. member relate the increase of 33J per cent in the contributions to old age security payments and increases up to 55 per cent in payments by employees under the unemployment insurance fund to the remarks he has just made.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: In my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I did not make any reference to old age security but to old age pensions.


William Moore Benidickson: In English, the old age security fund is the only fund that is entirely

Old Age Assistance
within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Is it not a fact that the present government has increased the contributions of those who might benefit by up to 33J per cent in the case of old age security and up to 55 per cent in the case of contributors to the unemployment insurance fund?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: These two things are different, Mr. Speaker. I do not think we live in a world where we can hope to have everything for nothing. We have to pay somehow. This is what is happening in the province of Quebec right now.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I did not have the misfortune of hearing the remarks of the distinguished member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade), but I was unfortunate enough to hear the speech made by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard).
As usual, the hon. member accused others of being nervous but, as you may have noticed yourself, Mr. Speaker, he was not exactly calm himself. He was so flustered, that I believe he made a slight departure from the truth when bringing forward a great many arguments to prove that social legislation had been introduced by the Conservative party. Needless to recall, Mr. Speaker, that all social security legislation passed in this country was enacted under Liberal administration. Family allowances, for instance, were introduced by a Liberal government, and that in spite of every objection raised by our friends opposite, in spite of the objections of their party leader, Colonel Drew, who said that family allowances were a baby bonus for the province of Quebec.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member is straying from the resolution.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I also forgot to tell you that I had the misfortune of hearing the speech of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). He preceded the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Bissonnette), I think. I noticed that those two hon. members were in every way like their ministers, which is to say that they contradicted each other within a period of two minutes. One of them said that it was difficult to pass that resolution, for where would we find the money, how were we to finance that new social legislation? And, immediately afterwards, the other hon. member, belonging to the same party, told us: "I am in favour of the legislation, but you are not going far enough, you are not generous enough", at least, if I correctly understood the hon. members, therefore, within two minutes, those two hon. members contradicted each other,

just like their ministers. As a matter of fact, the press is full of their contradictory statements.


Mr. Asselin:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that the ministers contradicted each other. Could he prove his statement by quoting those contradictions?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. When the hon. member for Charlevoix rose, I thought he wanted to tell the house that the remarks made by the hon. member for St. Denis were not related to this resolution. Therefore I would ask the hon. member not to answer that question but to come back to the subject matter of this debate.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, then you agree with me that the hon. member's question was not in order; but so was the answer I was about to give.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member brought about that question by straying from the subject matter of the debate.


Azellus Denis: Unfortunately, I listened carefully when the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot spoke. He said that old age pensions had been increased by 50 per cent. We all know that these pensions were raised from $46 to $55. He claims that $9 represents a 50 per cent increase. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) was right when he asked the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe what school he attended and if he knew how to count.
The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm and the hon. member for Quebec West are three government members and from what they say it would be the responsibility of the opposition to pass legislation. The first and second members tell us that it will cost too much and the third one takes us to task saying that it is not sufficient. It is not surprising that old age pensions should have doubled, Mr. Speaker. To live under a Conservative administration makes us grow old. There are now many more older people than there were before 1956.


An hon- Member:: There are not only older people, there are those who are off their head.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member did not address himself to the resolution from the beginning of his remarks. He criticized the hon. member for Charlevoix and the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe. He addressed himself to his supporters. I submit that he should tell us what he thinks about the resolution before us.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, it is the only way for the hon. member to get a bit of personal publicity. Perhaps it is not the correct way, but it is his only way.
I refer to the resolution and to pensions such as they are. At present, they are granted at the age of 65 in case of need and at 70 to everyone. Under this resolution, it is intended to add widows and unmarried women 60 years old.
I can understand why that resolution is not to their liking, because since a Liberal government was elected in Quebec, the same resolution has become law-at least it will become so in a few weeks-in the beautiful province of Quebec. Yet, their friends were in power for 14 years and did nothing in that connection.
When the hon. member for Quebec West talks about all the hardships he saw as a doctor, I know he is telling the truth; I believe he is telling the truth. I know he sees hardships everywhere. He knows that hardships exist especially in large families. That is why he wanted the resolution to be more generous and not only limited to widows of 60 years, but to those of 40, 35 and even 30 years. But the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is against that, because he does not know where the money will come from.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member for St. Denis claims that I said things in this house which I never said.


Azellus Denis: I had told you so, Mr. Speaker, he is exactly like the members of the cabinet. He denies today what he said yesterday. Every time a minister makes a statement in the house or outside the house, newspapermen always seem to distort their words, and they take the floor to say they never said such a thing, that they have been misinterpreted, that statements are ascribed to them which they never made.
I have never seen such unlucky ministers. Either they talk through their hats, or newspapermen are not what they used to be.


An hon. Member:: You are seeing yourself in a mirror.


Azellus Denis: Which means that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and the hon. member for Quebec West, before making any statement, rather than contradicting themselves, should at least consult each other before hand. As regards the ministers, they have a cabinet where they all meet; they could memorize their statements to avoid 90205-6-113i
Old Age Assistance
mistakes. As for the others, I excuse them somewhat, because they are not sitting on the same side of the house; they have a different outlook and do not go around with the same friends. Just the same, they have good friends on both sides. So, before taking the floor on any resolution, I think that members of the same party should agree to say the same thing. It is true that in the past few years, ministers have not been too consistent with one another in that connection. When some of them say yes, the others say no. Besides, I can tell from the answer given by the hon. member for La Malbaie.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am the member for Charlevoix and not the member for La Malbaie as stated by my hon. friend opposite.


An hon. Member:: He is so seldom in the house that he does not know.


Azellus Denis: Excuse me, and I hope that the population of La Malbaie will not be offended by the interjection of the hon. member for Charlevoix. In fact, I wonder whether I would not get more votes than he would in that riding.


Martial Asselin: Just come and see.


Azellus Denis: At all events, I would be pleased to go there unless you decide first to quit politics.


Martial Asselin: Oh, no.


Azellus Denis: So, I heartily support this resolution and, as the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) did, I ask the house to endorse it.
(Text):


Mr. Monieith (Perth):: You do not agree with the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Bissonnette) though.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: I would like to ask the hon. minister whether he has done all he could to help the people who are so much in need of help. I believe he did what he could but, unfortunately, like the others, he is a member of a bad government and he will not have time to pass this resolution because it is the next Liberal government which will do so.
When the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) said that we were far from the people, I wonder whether he recalled the election in Labelle and the results of the byelections in Russell and Niagara.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, for the last few minutes, the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) has been dealing with anything but the resolution before the house.

Old Age Assistance


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, look who is inquiring about the resolution. He knows much more about it than I do. He dealt with it a few minutes ago.
I will however tell him that it is on the order paper for Monday February 6, 1961, page 4. Does the hon. member wish me to read it?


Georges-J. Valade: You should read it.


Azellus Denis: Yes, I should perhaps read it to him, but I think he is acquainted with it. He is such a well informed person that he knows the Liberal party is preparing to take similar action in the province of Quebec and that does not suit him.
Let me say in closing-
(Text):


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I gather that the Liberal party in Quebec is following the lead of the hon. member for Quebec West.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: I am glad that with our remarks, Mr. Speaker, we succeeded in making the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) rise. It is probably his only contribution to the house. Well, since his department is concerned, I wonder if he knows what it is for a 60-year old widow to be penniless; I wonder if he knows what it is for a single woman to be without money and unable to earn a living, if he realizes the difficulty she might have? If he does not know, he should contact his colleague for Quebec West who is a doctor and who is much closer to the people than the minister.
I am sure that the Minister of National Health and Welfare after a consultation with the hon. member for Quebec West, would know much more and would welcome heartily the proposal of the hon. member for Fort William.
So I ask the minister to rise and tell us if he is in favour of this resolution; he might also tell us whether he expects to introduce a bill in the near future to do justice to those people in urgent need, to those widows and unmarried women of 60 years of age.


Georges-J. Valade: May I ask a question of the hon. member?


Azellus Denis: Please do.


Georges-J. Valade: Could he tell me what he thinks of this resolution?
(Text):


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I was rising to ask a question of the hon. member for St. Denis who has just concluded his remarks.
[Mr. Valade.l


Mr. Jones:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to stop the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River but the Chair recognizes the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Speaker, tonight we have heard from the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc) and the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis). They have talked a good deal about the new proposal in the province of Quebec. Perhaps we should remind them of a few of the facts of life. I wonder if they realize that the federal government is bearing a share of the cost of these benefits about which they have been talking through the medium of the federal unemployment assistance legislation. If I have the opportunity I intend to review some of the legislation that exists in other parts of this country and then hon. members will see that these proposals they have made tonight are ones for which we all have sympathy. We all want to help the people who are in need, and the Conservatives are especially desirous of helping those who are in need.
I looked at this resolution and found that it reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of extending old age assistance to unmarried women and widows of 60 years of age.


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


Henry Frank Jones: Would the hon. member mind? I have only about five minutes in which to speak.


William Moore Benidickson: You have ten minutes, but I think you are going to talk this resolution out.


Henry Frank Jones: As I have pointed out, the resolution makes no mention at all of one of the very seriously disabled groups, one that is well known to every person who has ever had anything to do with social welfare problems -I refer to the deserted wives. What about a deserted wife of 60 or 65 years of age? Why does the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) not include her?


Mr. Peters:: Why don't you amend the resolution to cover them?


Henry Frank Jones: I am sure everyone will agree with the real intention of the hon. member

for Fort William, and will agree that he has kindly intentions. I think that all members will agree that the question is whether or not the action suggested would, in fact, improve the situation in any way. There is already in existence a network of programs which meet the objectives toward which this particular proposal is directed. I think that an examination of some of these programs will substantiate this statement. I intend, if I can, to cover each one in the brief time at my disposal.
First of all, I want to say that those who have been very active in social welfare work over the years feel very strongly that the administrative machinery providing social aid should remain as flexible as possible. This flexibility has been provided by the various types of legislation, both provincial and federal, which are already on the books. I am not here to say that the legislation which is already on the books goes far enough. Certainly, improvements can be made. However, when we come to look at the resolution perhaps we will have to take into account some of these other programs.
The programs that are in existence already cover such things as old age assistance, blind allowances, disability allowances and the federal unemployment assistance act. The last of these measures is designed to give assistance to the provinces on these very points referred to in the resolution. This act has been amended since we came into office and I should like to remind my Liberal friends that it is a particularly progressive piece of legislation which helps the provinces and the municipalities carry out this essential work of assistance to those in need, no matter what their age may be, no matter whether they are married or unmarried or whether they are widows. When you are dealing with social problems, surely need is the criterion. We must look after those in need first.


Murdo William Martin: Have you not got a
big enough majority?


William Moore Benidickson: They are using it now.


Henry Frank Jones: The federal government reimburses the provinces for the payment made within the existing provincial framework of assistance. The scale on which the aid is given is determined by the provinces themselves. It is the provinces that determine the amount of aid, how it shall be given and to whom it shall be given.
I should remind hon. members that today Canadians throughout all the ten provinces
Business of the House
benefit from legislation which the Conservative government brought into effect improving the former unemployment assistance act. I should like to turn to some of the assistance programs that exist in the provinces to show what has already been done and what is already available. I should like to point out, very rapidly, that in each province there is now assistance for women of 60 or over who qualify for it on the basis of need.
Before we go any further with this matter of providing aid we will have to discuss the situation with the provinces and get their concurrence. Flexibility has been the demand of the provinces because the provinces have jurisdictional rights over this particular form of aid. The provinces demand that they shall have the right to determine to whom these funds shall go and how much shall go to each person in the various categories. The provinces are the ones that have this right and they do not intend to have their powers usurped by a resolution proposed by the hon. member for Fort William or anybody else.
I should like to mention some of the provisions that exist in the province of Ontario. Women of 60 years of age and over may qualify for general assistance or an incapacitation allowance up to $60 a month under the general welfare assistance act. This assistance is administered by the municipality and rates are in accordance with the scale set by the province. The province reimburses the municipality for 80 per cent of the amount of assistance given. The rate of general assistance for a single person living alone is $48.50 for food, clothing, household sundries, fuel allowance for cooking with electricity and shelter. Extra allowance is made for special diets, fuel or shelter under special circumstances. This is an outline of the Ontario program. The program in Manitoba is slightly different and in Saskatchewan slightly different again. However, I point out that each of the provinces insist that they shall have the right to say how much and to whom these payments shall go.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Moore Benidickson: May I ask the leader on the government side whether the business of the house will be the same for tomorrow as was announced on Friday.


Jay Waldo Monteith: In the absence of the house leader I should like to announce that it will be as stated previously. Tomorrow

Business of the House
we will start with item No. 9 on today's order paper, which is the resolution concerning the Pension Act. It this is concluded we will resume the debate on the budget resolutions. Wednesday we will take budget resolutions and Thursday second reading of the bill to amend the Pension Act.


William Moore Benidickson: Regardless of what happens, the Pension Act will be the first item of business on Thursday if it has passed the resolution stage?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Second reading, yes.


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

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

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation use the services during 1960 ol any of the following journalists: Pierre Berton, John Bird, Charles Templeton, Robert Weaver, Robert Fulford, Gordon Sinclair, Nathan Cohen, Ron Haggart, Mark Gayn, Peter Dernpson, Ed Mahoney, Margaret Aitken, Mavor Moore, Frank Tumpane, Frank Drea, Thomas Richard Henry?
2.	If so, on how many occasions for each, and at what remuneration?
Answer by: Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister
of National Revenue):
I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Twelve of the 16 persons named were engaged during 1960 as participants receiving a fee. The exceptions were Frank Drea and Thomas Richard Henry, who were not used. Miss Margaret Aitken appeared in a political broadcast; Mr. Robert Weaver, a C.B.C. employee, in an interview program. Neither received a fee.
2.	The following are the number of engagements for C.B.C. programs during 1960 of the 12 remaining. Appearances referred to were on the television network, or locally on CBLT Toronto or CBOT Ottawa; or on the trans-Canada radio network, the dominion network, or locally on CBL, or CJBC Toronto or on CBO Ottawa. Length of contribution ranged from one minute to entire programs.
(a)	Engagements for programs where contributor appeared as commentator, as discussion participant in opinion programming, as interview subject, or as speaker in general talks series:
Pierre Berton, 53; John Bird, 7; Nathan Cohen, 3; Peter Dernpson, 16; Robert Fulford, 24; Mark Gayn, 29; Ron Haggart, 5; Ed Mahoney, 22; Mavor Moore, 13; Gordon Sinclair, 2; Charles Templeton, 3; Frank Tumpane, 55.
(b)	Number of appearances as reporter in news or weather program:
John Bird, 2; Robert Fulford, 2; Mark Gayn, 3; Ron Haggart, 1; Gordon Sinclair- weather 143.
(c)	Number of appearances as actor, panelist in light entertainment programs, interviewer, or master of ceremonies:
Pierre Berton, 46; John Bird, 1; Nathan Cohen, 49; Peter Dernpson, 2; Mavor Moore, 37; Gordon Sinclair, 40; Charles Templeton, 47.
It is not considered to be in the public interest to disclose amounts of payments
Questions
to individuals, as it would affect the position of the corporation in a competitive business in negotiating for services.


MILITARY COLLEGES-FRENCH AND ENGLISH SPEAKING CADETS
Mr. Argue: 1.	In each year since the opening of the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean, what proportion of cadets entering the first year have been (a) French speaking; (b) English speaking?
2.	In each year since the opening of the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean, what proportion of cadets graduating from the second year and entering the Royal Military College, Kingston, Ontario, have been (a) French speaking; (b) English speaking?
3.	In each year, what proportion of the cadets mentioned in question 2 and passing successfully into the fourth year at R.M.C. have been (a) French speaking; (b) English speaking?
4.	In each year, what proportion of the cadets mentioned in question 2 and graduating from the Royal Military College on completion of the fourth year have been (a) French speaking; (b) English speaking?
Answer by: Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate
Minister of National Defence):
1.	In each year since College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean opened in September, 1952, the proportion of French speaking and English speaking cadets who entered the preparatory (initial) year was:
French	English
Year	speaking	speaking
% %
1952	
62.7	37.31953	
57.9	42.11954	
55.9	44.11955	
52.6	47.41956	
55.4	44.61957	
48.3	51.71958	
55.6	44.41959	
60.1	39.91960	
50	502.	In each year, the proportion of French speaking and English speaking second year graduates from College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean who entered the third year at the Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston, Ontario, was:French	EnglishYear	speaking	speaking
% %
1955	
46.6	53.41956	
51	491957	
54.1	45.91958	
52.9	47.11959	
45.9	54.11960	
46.6	53.4
N.B.-The first of the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean second year graduates entered the third year at the Royal Military College in 1955.

Questions
3.	In each year, the proportion of French speaking and English speaking cadets mentioned in question 2 who passed successfully into the fourth year at the Royal Military College was:
	French	English
Year	speaking	speaking
	%	%
1956 	
33.3	66.71957 	
47.3	52.71958 	
51.3	48.71959 	
42.8	57.21960 	
41	59
N.B.-The College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean second year graduates who first entered the third year at the Royal Military College in 1955, subsequently entered the fourth year in 1956.
4.	In each year, the proportion of French speaking and English speaking cadets mentioned in question 2 who graduated from the Royal Military College on completion of the fourth year was:
	French	English
Year	speaking	speaking
	%	%
1957	
33.3	66.71958	
47.3	52.71959	
47	531960	
43.7	56.3N.B.-	-The cadets of the	first entry into
College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean in September, 1952, graduated from the fourth year at the Royal Military College in May 1957.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AUTHORITY   ARBITRATION BOARD
Mr. Argue: 1.	Was an arbitration board appointed to inquire into claims made by contractors against the St. Lawrence seaway authority?
2.	If so, by whom was it appointed, on what date, who are its members, what claims have been investigated?
Answer by: Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	The answer is in the negative.
2.	N.A.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AUTHORITY- EXPENDITURES AND INDEBTEDNESS
Mr. Argue: 1.	What is the total amount of money which the St. Lawrence seaway authority has (a) borrowed; (b) paid on accounts, from the beginning of construction work until January 1, 1961?
2.	What is the outstanding indebtedness of the St. Lawrence seaway authority as of January 1, 1961, and to whom is this owed?
Answer by: Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
The current position is-
1.	(a) as of January 1, 1961, $306,800,000, including temporary loans made during 1954/55 of $1,300,000, and repaid in 1955/56.
(b) $304,295,842.10, as of November 30, 1960.
2.	Borrowed, $305,500,000; unpaid interest, $29,075,700; the Minister of Finance.


POST OFFICE CARETAKER, GRIMSBY, ONT.
Mr. Argue: 1.	Has a caretaker recently been appointed by the civil service commission in the post office in Grimsby, Ontario?
2.	If so, who was appointed to fill this position?
3.	Does this appointee have any other employment apart from that of caretaker?
4.	If so, what are these employments?
5.	Were there other applicants for the position who were unemployed?
6.	If so, what are their names and for how long have they been unemployed?
Answer by: Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of Stale):
1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. Harold Andrew Clausen.
3.	4, 5 and 6. Not known to the civil service commission.

Tuesday, February 7, 1961


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization-Mr. McBain.

William Marvin Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the motion that the first report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, presented to the house on Wednesday, February 1, be now concurred in.


George James McIlraith: For
reasons which I set out on Friday in regard to a similar motion for concurrence in the report of the committee on banking and commerce, I desire to oppose this motion.
I do not propose to reiterate the reasons given on that occasion. I think it is sufficient if I have permission of the house to make reference to what was said in that debate, and to say that I still find myself opposed to the proposition that a committee chairman can come before the house and ask concurrence in a committee report which recommends that the committee should have leave to sit while the house is sitting, without at the same time giving the house any reasons why that particular committee needs such an extraordinary right.
As far as I know this particular committee has no special business indicated for its attention this session, and in the absence of any such circumstance I find myself opposed to the motion for concurrence; that is, opposed to paragraph 3 of the report. I note that in paragraph 2 a request is made to reduce the quorum of this particular committee from 20 to 10, again without any particular reasons being given, but I do not particularly raise that matter at this time.
I therefore move, seconded by my colleague the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier):
That the motion be amended by inserting the words "paragraphs 1 and 2 of" after the word "that" and before the word "the".
The motion would then read:
That paragraphs 1 and 2 of the first report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines be now concurred in
The significance of the amendment in this form is that the other parts of the committee's report would be concurred in, and if the amendment were carried it would merely mean that the paragraph having to do with the right of the committee to sit while the house is sitting would not be dealt with today and that matter would stand in suspension in so far as the house is concerned.


Orville H. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may be permitted to direct a question to the hon. member and ask if he is not aware that the motion for the committee to sit while the house is in session was seconded by his colleague the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai).


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take it that the hon. member is referring to what happened in the committee. I think it would be out of order to go behind the report which is before the house for consideration. Is the house ready for the question?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat the arguments which have been advanced over and over again throughout the years in this regard. Suffice it to say that all that is being asked by the committee is the right to sit. That does not mean that the committee would be asked to sit unless some matter of importance should arise.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister would permit a question. The hon. gentleman said that what was being asked was the right to sit. The report reads "to sit while the house is sitting".


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly what I said. I point out the fact that we realize very well that with the number of committees set up it is sometimes difficult for hon. members to be present in all of them, particularly so if those committees sat while the house is sitting. However, this has become the traditional course. Objection has been taken in the past, and I seem to recall that when I was in opposition similar arguments were advanced.
I also recall, however, that when it came to the implementation of the power given by the house, then as now this course was not arbitrarily followed. Every consideration has been given to hon. members by the committee to the end that hon. members will not be placed in an impossible position.

Railways and Canals Committee
I simply raise the question because that has been the practice in the past, and no harm that I know of has resulted under that practice. I am sure that every care and consideration will be exercised by the chairman and members of the committee to the end that injustice or inequity should not be allowed to occur, and to the end in particular that hon. members shall not be denied the fullest opportunity to be present in the house.
Sometimes when this question is raised it occurs to me that although hon. members have a very strong desire not to have committees sit while the house is sitting, the attendance of hon. gentlemen in this house is not always what it should be. It is no different in this house from the situation that obtains in the British House of Commons. All hon. members are not present throughout the full day. After the orders of the day have received attention those hon. members who are particularly interested in subjects coming before the house remain in attendance. I am sure that no injustice would be done under this arrangement.
Sometimes we hear it said that our members are not present to the degree that they should be, that more of them should be in the house. That has been said throughout the years. I was impressed upon reading Friday's issue of the London Times to learn that on Thursday in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom it was found that there was not a quorum present. When the matter was brought to the attention of the speaker those who were in the environs came in and the house proceeded. The fact that hon. members are not always present but have other work to do in no way indicates their lack of interest and responsibility.
That being so, I am sure that much of the argument to the effect that there would be gross interference with the rights of private members, in the event that this motion was passed, tends to disappear in the light of experience.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I might be allowed to say one word in connection with the matter. The objection taken by the hon. member for Ottawa West had to do with two committees only, the one last week dealing with banking and commerce and the other this week dealing with railways, canals and telegraph lines. The objection taken in connection with both was that it seemed to him and to us that the over-all powers should not be taken at this time because in these committees, and more particularly in the one now before the house, the matters dealt with normally are bills of a public or a private nature, where it is not necessary for witnesses to remain in attendance on the committee over a period


of hours or even days. In my experience, at least, most of the time they have been witnesses from government departments, principally from the Department of Transport or its agencies. Surely it cannot be said that it is difficult for these witnesses to come here.
Therefore it seemed to us, as I am sure it seemed to the hon. member for Ottawa West, that this was a power which should not be given until later on in the session. If there should come a time when witnesses were required to remain here for several days, then a request could be made for the power. It seemed to us that this power should not be asked for now because it is not necessary. This is a matter which I at least would like to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister.


William Marvin Howe: I should like to say that the committee we are discussing today has a great deal to do with the national development of Canada. If the hon. member for Laurier will cast his mind back he will recall that a great many bills of one kind or another, having to do with the development of Canada from one end of the country to the other, come before this committee. There have been occasions when witnesses have been brought here and if the sitting had extended over several days it would have entailed considerable personal sacrifice and expense on the part of these people. Therefore I do not think we are at all out of order in asking for this privilege.
As I say, this is not something new; it is something that has been done before. I suggest that the house accept this motion. I can assure the house and the committee that we will not abuse the privileges that are being given to this committee by this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? The question is on the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Mcllraith) negatived on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.

William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) asked certain questions regarding the repair of mail boxes, and I am now able to reply.
In order to provide work in connection with the rehabilitation and training of prisoners, post office street letter boxes and relay boxes have been repaired in penitentiaries, principally Kingston penitentiary, for many

years and certainly since the 1900's. Only the metal work has been carried on in the penitentiaries; no locks were repaired there and no keys officially manufactured.
However, late in 1956 Post Office Department officials received an indication that keys might have been secretly manufactured in Kingston penitentiary and smuggled out. As a result discussions took place with the penitentiary officials, and my department received assurances from them that protective measures would be taken.
Recently certain mail box thefts were committed with illegally manufactured keys, and my officials informed me that keys were again issuing from Kingston penitentiary despite the protective measures which had been taken there. This was the first indication I had been given of this problem, and as a result it has been decided to discontinue mail box repairs in penitentiaries and have the work done by commercial firms.
I have given consideration to changing the locks on mail boxes but have decided against this step at this time, because there are over 40,000 such boxes spread across Canada and the estimated cost would be in excess of $200,000, and there would be no effective increase in security. The type of professional criminal who is able to procure a key and use it to open mail boxes will not be deterred by a change of locks; even bank vaults and safes are not always proof against their ingenuity. Furthermore, in most cases where mail boxes have been rifled the box has been forcibly broken open and no key has been involved at all.
Perhaps I might be permitted to say a few words more, Mr. Speaker, on a closely related subject. It has been post office practice for a number of years to pay rewards to those giving information leading to the arrest and conviction of persons who have committed offences concerning the post office. A similar practice is followed by the Canadian Bankers' Association and other organizations.
Some of these organizations have publicized their willingness to pay these rewards and have found it helpful. Until now the Post Office Department has not done so, but we will shortly be issuing a poster for display in all post offices offering rewards of from $200 to $2,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those guilty of various types of offences against the post office and the mail it carries.
The two actions I have referred to today, Mr. Speaker, indicate that while it may never be possible to eliminate thefts, robberies and burglaries completely, aggressive action is being taken by the government to prevent such occurrences and to apprehend and convict those responsible. One measure
Housing
of our success in this regard has been demonstrated by the fact that the number of robberies in the nine months ending December 31 has decreased from 292 in the previous year to 248 in the current year, and our losses of cash and postal supplies from such robberies dropped from $135,557 in the same period of the previous year to $87,042 for the current year.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house has listened with interest to the statement which the Postmaster General has just made in connection with this important matter. It is difficult, of course, when such a statement is read to follow it carefully. However, when Hansard is available tomorrow we will have an opportunity of reading the statement in detail.
From what the minister has said and the statement he has made to the house there is no doubt that the hon. member for St. Denis was well advised in raising the question when he did on, I believe, more than one occasion. In the granting of awards the Postmaster General has in mind I think he should give consideration to giving a reward to the hon. member for St. Denis.


William McLean Hamilton: He
will get his from the electors in the next election.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for St. Denis unquestionably warrants the reception of one on two counts, not only because of the fact that he raised this important subject but also because of the fact that he was scoffed at by those on the other side of the house when he did raise it.


HOUSING
David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, the statement I wish to make has nothing to do with awards. Because of the swift and vigorous response of the house building industry to actions taken recently by the government and the resulting very significant impact on unemployment, I wish to make a brief statement.
All hon. members will, I know, be happy to learn that total National Housing Act lending activity in January was higher than in the same month for any other year in the whole history of N.H.A. activities. Loans were requested during the month for 3,515 dwelling units. This figure compares with a mere 157 in January, 1960, and with the previous high of 3,192 in January, 1958.

Housing
Of the 3,515 units, 1,460 were by approved lenders compared with 151 a year ago and 1,580 in January, 1955, when the banks had their first full year of lending under the National Housing Act, 1954. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation financed the balance of 2,055 units. Although most of the January loans were to home owner applicants and to builders who had already obtained purchasers, a feature of the month's lending was the $8,135,000 approved for 961 units of limited dividend rental accommodation for lower income families and elderly persons.
I must report also that the rising trend in new housing starts, unbroken since last August, continued in January, the increase being 4.7 per cent over the same month a year ago.
Finally, I revert to December, 1960, which was a near record month for home improvement loan activity. This, of course, reflected extension of these loans to rental properties, including apartment houses. Home improvement loans during the month amounted to $4,683,000, the highest dollar volume since September, 1958. These figures indicate, Mr. Speaker, the immediate effects on economic activity and employment of some of the amendments to the National Housing Act were made in December last.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the house will rejoice in the message the Minister of Public Works has just given it, more particularly that part having to do with increased activities in housing generally and the rising trend in housing starts. My friend the hon. member for Nipis-sing, who deals with these matters for this side of the house, is unfortunately absent in his own constituency; otherwise he would be commenting on this announcement.
All I need say at the moment is that anything done in this house which tends to assist the construction industry or the possibility of employment will be welcomed on this side of the house. None the less, we cannot help but couple the statement the minister has just made with the one he made on the radio, I believe it was on Friday, wherein he stated that the unemployment situation would be a great deal worse before it would get better. I trust that the measures he will bring before this house will have the effect of improving the situation in the near future.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The
members of this group are happy to know that the prodding and suggestions and advice of

members of the opposition have moved the government to action so that the minister has pleasure in announcing this measure of winter success in housing. We trust the minister will continue to accept our suggestions and advice, and it is hoped that he will have further successes and achievements to report.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 43
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Minister of Transport or any of his officials, and any municipality, company or persons, relating to the establishment of an airport at Creston, British Columbia, since January 1, 1960.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Gabriel Roberge: That in the opinion of this house the government should consider the advisability of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act so that any benefits to which a Canadian worker would have been entitled be made available to his widow.
(Translation):
He said: In introducing this resolution, it is advisable to read the notice of motion. We find then that those concerned by the resolution now under discussion are the needy mothers. The notice of motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act so that any benefits to which a Canadian worker would have been entitled be made available to his widow.
That idea, Mr. Speaker, was suggested to me by one of my constituents who had obviously discussed the matter with his fellow workers. It is as a result of some practical experience that this idea sprang up in the minds of those workers.
As long ago as the first session of this parliament, I had the opportunity of discussing this matter briefly when I took part in the throne speech debate.
I shall refrain from saying again what I stated at that time, but I should like to refer my hon. friends to page 347 of Hansard of May 22, 1958.
Subsequently, every year since 1958, I put on the order paper the resolution I have just read. As you know, Mr. Speaker, according to the rules of this house, if a resolution is

not among the first six ones to be drawn, it stands no chance of being discussed during that same session. That is what happened in 1958, 1959 and 1950.
But in 1961, in the course of this session which started in November, I placed this motion on the order paper the very first day. It happened to draw number three, which gives me an opportunity to deal with it more fully today and go into more detail than I did in my outline of May 22, 1958. May I point out immediately that this proposal is in line with the general policy of the Liberal party in the field of social security. That is so true that I am going to quote to you right now paragraph 5 of page 28 of the new statement of Liberal policy made in 1958:
Extend unemployment Insurance benefits to as many people as possible.
Well, you are quite aware, Mr. Speaker, that eligibility for unemployment benefits is not transferable in case of death. The heirs cannot expect to receive any more than what is owed to the deceased in the week of his death.
You know, Mr. Speaker, that the death of the head of a family always brings tragedy in the family, because he leaves a widow and children behind him, and sometimes quite a number of children. The death of the father leaves his family without a breadwinner. Such a tragedy, of course, causes more hardship in the working classes because it is in those classes that people live from hand to mouth.
It is of the utmost importance that a family should have minimum resources to carry on for a while after the death of the breadwinner. As you know, Mr. Speaker, a certain amount of time must elapse after a decease, particularly in the case of the head of a family, before the estate can be settled, and it sometimes takes up to six months. And during that time, bank accounts and other properties belonging to the estate are temporarily frozen under both federal and provincial succession duty legislation.
And the widow and children are sometimes forced to borrow large sums of money at heavy interest to take care of their needs.
It is true that there are provincial workman's compensation laws and also laws providing assistance to mothers in need. But here again, for a case to be processed by the workmen's compensation board, in instances where death is the result of an accident, it takes time, and the widow has no money to 90205-6-111
Unemployment Insurance Act live on in the meantime. In the case of a mother in need, the inquiry by the provincial officials takes from three to six months, and I hardly need to stress the plight of the mother during that time.
The suggestion I am making today, on behalf of the people of the Megantic riding, would cover that period of time and provide the people concerned with a minimum of money to live in the meantime. Then, under what circumstances could those benefits be obtained? Evidently, the present terms of the act will continue to apply. In the case of a labourer or a wage-earner, the application will be dealt with according to section 25 of the act, which defines the insured occupations. It would also be necessary to establish whether the benefits are regular or seasonal. That is not too important, for all you would have to do would be to look up the file of the individual concerned to determine whether he is entitled to regular or seasonal benefits.
If the head of a family dies as a result of an accident, of illness or an accident sustained on his job, I submit that even then it is not too important because the general provisions of the act would still apply.
If the widow is getting benefits under the workmen's compensation act, she would of course have to declare her earnings to the unemployment insurance commission, and if such earnings exceed the amount permissible under the Unemployment Insurance Act, she would not in such a case, be entitled to unemployment benefits. But if, on the other hand, her incbme is below the permissible amount she could obtain the difference allowed by the Unemployment Insurance Act.
In the case of death following an illness, it would be necessary to establish whether the illness started while the individual was unemployed, or even whether it was the cause for the separation from employment. There again, the general terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act would apply, and people claiming benefits would have to comply with the other provisions of that act.
If death resulted from an accident other than an occupational accident, the solution would be easy. The widow could then apply for and obtain unemployment insurance benefits.
Now, for how long should the widow be entitled to such benefits? At present, the act provides for 52 weeks of regular benefits, while seasonal benefits are available only for the period comprised between December 1 and May 15.
175G

Unemployment Insurance Act
The act could operate normally and the benefit period could depend on the number of weekly contributions standing to the credit of the deceased breadwinner.
Mr. Speaker, those are the main reasons why I feel that the draft resolution under review today should receive the support of all members, regardless of whether they sit on this side of the house or on the government side.
. The benefits payable under such circumstances would cause no extra drain on the unemployment insurance fund, since only a small percentage of the people of this country would be entitled to them.
In closing, I urge my hon. friends to allow this resolution to be adopted by the house today.
(Text):


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, this house is asked to express an opinion. If we accepted the resolution proposed by the hon. member we would be recommending that the government give consideration to amending the Unemployment Insurance Act in such a way as to give a widow whatever benefits a deceased worker was entitled to receive.
It is a resolution which appeals to our better qualities. It is sentimental. I do not doubt in the least that people would go along with that suggestion, with that idea, in the proportion of ten to one. It no doubt appeals to the Canadian worker, as it is intended to. If the Canadian worker is concerned with anything he is concerned about the financial position which his wife would have to meet in the event of his death. Though he might be a spendthrift and live from hand to mouth and day to day he would still be in favour of this idea, because a dollar, no matter from What source, is a welcome addition to the security of his widow.
This resolution is intended to appeal to the widows of workers, and no doubt it will. There is hardly a woman who does not live from day to day in fear of losing the breadwinner of her family, of losing her mate, of losing her loved one. Above all she worries about the financial condition in which her family would find itself in the event of her husband's death. This house should commend the hon. member for having conceived the idea contained in the present motion. Although he does not claim full paternity of it I still give him credit for bringing the idea to the attention of the house. We should not be


human, we should not be Christian, if we did not admit that the idea behind this resolution is a Christian one.
However, the hon. member for Megantic has made reference to some of our statutes which provide for security to widows. I wish to elaborate on them, and to say that the idea is not a new one. Every province has statutes which are intended to assist destitute widows, in particular widows who are left with children. We have provincial workmen's compensation acts, which provide for compensation to widows whose husbands lose their lives in the course of their employment. We have the wives' and children's maintenance acts. We have a child welfare act in Manitoba under which the state provides for the needs of a widow left with children. Rights to benefit are conferred in Ontario under the statute known as the mothers' and dependent children's allowance act, which provides for such contingencies. Nor do the federal statutes fail to make provision for destitute widows or widows who require assistance. I refer hon. members in particular to the war widows' allowances act. That is as far as it goes.
I fully realize that unless a widow qualifies under these statutes she cannot receive assistance. That is why the hon. member's idea is a commendable one. A widow could be left penniless on the sudden death of her husband; she might not even have enough money to meet the funeral expenses. Even if her husband does leave an estate, I admit that it does take time to obtain letters of administration or letters of probate from our courts before she has access to whatever resources may have been left.
The concept behind the hon. member's resolution appears to be that a widow should receive at least the sum to which her husband would be entitled under the Unemployment Insurance Act. That seems to be the crux of the matter embodied in the resolution. I ask the hon. member this question. Is there anything in the Unemployment Insurance Act which gives a workman entitlement to any particular or definite sum?
I listened very carefully to the introductory remarks of the sponsor of this resolution. He omitted to indicate to the house whether an amendment of the nature he suggests would fit in with the principles of the Unemployment Insurance Act, or whether it would in effect pervert its principles. I am led to wonder whether such an amendment could be incorporated into the act or whether it is based on a false conception, a false hope that anything and everything is possible, that all you have to do is throw responsibility on the government and condemn the government for not carrying it out even if it is impossible to carry it out.

I hope that hon. members who participate in this debate will give some thought to the questions I have posed and answer them if possible. For my part I submit that the hon. member has placed an erroneous and false interpretation on the Unemployment Insurance Act. This legislation is not social welfare legislation. The hon. member believes that an amendment under which the worker's benefits under the act could be transferred to his widow is compatible with this legislation, but he has failed to prove this and I see no possibility of it being proved. It is true that this legislation has been so frequently amended and its interpretation stretched to the breaking point that those who brought it into being would today scarcely recognize the original intentions behind the measure. I am in full accord with the intention of the hon. member, but he has built his case on erroneous premise.
I trust that hon. members will follow me in this analysis. What I have in mind is this. Under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act a worker, qualified for benefits, is entitled to receive them when he is unemployed. For the purposes of this illustration let us say he is qualified for 20 weeks of benefits at $15 a week. Under the legislation he is not entitled to 20 x $15, or $300, but is entitled to weekly benefits based on weekly reports he must make. If he obtains employment within a three-week period he will have drawn $45, but he has no legal claim on interest in or right to what he may have anticipated receiving, i.e., the balance of $300. On the basis of the premise adopted by the sponsor of this measure the worker, regardless of having found employment, would be entitled to the full $300 and could transfer that entitlement to his widow, his estate, his heirs or to whomever he pleased. If that premise were correct, of course, the hon. member's amendment embodied in this resolution would fit like a glove.
I submit that under the Unemployment Insurance Act a worker is not entitled to any certain sum. He knows what his weekly benefits will be and he knows for how many weeks he qualifies to draw unemployment insurance benefits, but he has no legal claim to any specific sum nor can he draw benefit when what is coming to him has been exhausted.
In my submission the Unemployment Insurance Act is not social welfare legislation but straight insurance, and in no way differs from, let us say, fire insurance or automobile insurance. Both those forms of insurance offer protection. The Unemployment Insurance Act offers protection to a worker in the event of the loss of his job. His entitlement to that 90205-6-llli
Unemployment Insurance Act protection is based on his contributions. Until circumstances are such that the insured under a fire insurance policy can make a claim to the company, he has no interest in the fund set aside by the insurance company to pay claims when they arise. The same situation obtains in the case of an automobile insurance policy. An insured pays his premiums but has no interest in the fund set aside by the company to meet contingencies until the insured is involved in a collision or in some other way damages his automobile.
Under fire and automobile insurance policies however, an insured is entitled to cancel his protection at any time he chooses and receive a refund of the premium he has paid. You cannot do this under the Unemployment Insurance Act. If you stop making contributions you cannot ask for a refund, because you have absolutely no interest in the unemployment insurance fund. I am not losing sight of the fact that under the provisions of this act and its regulations, out of every dollar in the fund the worker contributes five twelfths, the employer five twelfths and the federal treasury two twelfths. I should like the hon. member to explain to what portion, if any, the worker is entitled during his lifetime. I am afraid that in his introductory remarks he did not take note of that; he ignored it entirely, intentionally or otherwise.
As I have said, this resolution is very appealing; it is bound to appeal, and I think that is the hon. member's intention. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that the worker has no interest in the unemployment insurance fund to which he has contributed, none whatsoever, except on the happening of a certain event. The first event is that he has to be without a job, but under the act it is not sufficient just to be without a job. That was the principle on which the act was first built; that was the original intention of the creators or fathers of this particular legislation. First, as I said, there must be the happening of a certain event, namely that he is without a job; but that is not sufficient. There must be more, and what is that? Everyone knows that he must register, be capable of and available for work during all that period of time to which he is entitled according to the provisions of the act. By no stretch of the imagination can we say, Mr. Speaker, that a man who is sick-he may be available-is capable of work, and even less so when he is dead. But even when he is available and capable he cannot tell from week to week how much of a drain his unemployment will be on the fund. There is nothing definite, nothing certain, Mr. Speaker, and there is

Unemployment Insurance Act nothing left for the widow when he dies. Therefore this resolution is built on a permise without foundation.
The Unemployment Insurance Act is a straight insurance act with a contract being the guiding principle all through it. I have an illustration I should like to give the house. Suppose it has been determined that at the time the worker makes his claim he is entitled to a maximum of $30 per week for 12 weeks, or a total sum of $360. Has he any entitlement to this amount when his claim has been approved? Should he be unemployed for 12 weeks, certainly he will draw the $360; but if he should, as I have already mentioned, secure employment within four or five weeks, then that is all he is entitled to and that is all he will get. If he gets a job he is not entitled to any benefit. Oh, I know there are mistaken impressions and mistaken interpretations of this act throughout the country. I think every hon. member realizes that there are abuses. As I said before, this act has been amended so often that its original creators would hardly recognize it, but insurance is the main principle on which it is based.
I could give the house an example of a man or a woman who has contributed to the fund for 34 years while working at a permanent job during that time, but is required, to retire at 65 on a sizeable pension. Yet this person has the mistaken idea that because he or she has contributed to the fund for 30 or 40 years, he or she is entitled to withdraw at least the money put in, and if he or she can get more, all the better. But the act says they have to register, and they register. The next step is to be available for employment, but who wants to employ a man of a certain age who has been discharged or pensioned off by others? Through technicalities there are many people who are drawing unemployment benefits for 52 weeks. I submit that this idea would fit in wonderfully well with some portion of social legislation.
I posed certain questions to the hon. member which he did not touch on, much less try to answer. There would be a considerable drain on the fund, but the hon. member has not indicated how collections would be made or whether workers would be asked to increase their contributions. He has attempted really to create another breach in the battle that we are carrying on to defend the integrity of the fund, because to carry out this suggestion would mean a considerable drain on the fund.
I will admit that this is a good idea; it is attractive; it has a sentimental appeal, but it does not fit into the Unemployment Insurance Act. It fits in no better than a square peg in a round hole. This idea could be the subject of new legislation altogether.

My sympathies are with the widow who is left penniless and needs money in a hurry, but we already have some legislation in that direction. I like the Ontario legislation that I have already mentioned. With respect to mothers' allowance legislation, it could be amended to take in the widow regardless of whether she has children of a minor age. I think this could be the subject of a special statute. I appreciate the value of this suggestion, but I submit that it does not fit into the concept of the Unemployment Insurance Act because, as I have said, there is no sum to which the worker is entitled even when he is qualified for benefits.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Megantic on bringing this very important problem before the house today, but I am afraid that right at this moment I must part company with him because this resolution is not a very good solution to the important problem that he has brought before the house.
I am also afraid that the resolution shows a woeful lack of imagination on the part of members of the Liberal party, in that once again we see them taking a fund designed for one specific purpose and trying to spread it across the whole gamut of all the social problems with which we are faced today. Let us take a look at the resolution. It reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act so that any benefits to which a Canadian worker would have been entitled be made available to his widow.
As the hon. member for Marquette pointed out in what I think was possibly a legal interpretation, the worker is not really entitled to any benefits unless he falls within a certain set of circumstances. I am not going to go into the legal aspects of the matter at all, because I do not think we have to do so. I should like to consider for a moment just what the resolution means. Is a widow only going to be entitled to whatever unemployment benefits her husband may have on his death? Is that the way we are going to solve the problem of widows in this country? Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we need a fund for widows, but not the unemployment insurance fund.
I think this resolution points up one of the reasons why we find the unemployment insurance fund in the predicament it is in today. If we cast our minds back to when the fund was originally established we will recall that it was set up for a specific purpose, on the simple theory that while a person was working he would pay a premium which would

give him at least a subsistence payment when he was temporarily out of work.
What has happened to this principle over the years? We have seen it steadily eroded through political expediency, through use being made of the fund's vote-catching possibilities which neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives apparently are able to resist. The principle of the fund has been extended far beyond its original scope. It has been extended to take in people whom it was never intended to cover under the original principle of the plan.
What has this brought about? It has created a public contempt for the fund from coast to coast. People see other people drawing benefits from the unemployment insurance fund to which in fact they were not entitled under the original plan, so they say, "If they can get it, why can I not get it"? As a result the fund has developed into a great and bottomless pork barrel into which everybody is trying to put their hand. We see it extended to business, to government, to pensioners and to the public generally, with everybody trying to get in on the act.
I had occasion not too long ago to try to establish a disability pension for one of my constituents who is afflicted with a steadily creeping paralysis. His employer, one of the mines in my riding, kept him on as long as he could possibly get to work, and they leaned over backward to try to keep his job open. When he finally reached the stage where he could no longer go to work and we were trying to obtain his disability pension, a government official advised him not to take it until his unemployment insurance benefits had run out.
Was the fund designed for that purpose? Are we supposed to care for our disability pensioners out of the unemployment insurance fund? Are we supposed to maintain our old age pensioners out of the unemployment insurance fund? Or should we establish a fund for these pensioners that would be adequate to provide them with at least a decent living?
The impression I got from the hon. member for Marquette was that we have an adequate system of social security plans without having to dip into the unemployment insurance fund. I do not accept that statement. If we did have such a system I do not think we would have this resolution before us today. In my opinion the only reason the resolution is before us is that there is a very definite need in this field, in that in many cases widows in this country are in very desperate straits. That is why the hon. member has brought this resolution before the house, and I commend him for at least that aspect of the thinking behind it.
Unemployment Insurance Act
I think we should face up to and accept our responsibilities as members of the house to try to provide some solution for this problem. However, as I said before, so far as the unemployment insurance fund is concerned I think we should return to unemployment insurance principles. I do not think there is any other piece of legislation on the statute books today that comes in for as many complaints across the country as does the unemployment insurance fund.
We hear cries from here and there that we should police the fund and try to do away with some of the many abuses that are being perpetrated against it at the present time, but I should like to say that policing is no answer. If we were to police the fund adequately we would need a police force larger than the number of civil servants we have today. The only answer I can see is some kind of massive educational program to get the Canadian people back on the right track so they will realize what the fund is for and will use it in that light.
I think it is time we did something to counteract the fallacy that has been built up in this country of a great benevolent father government granting funds to deserving children from some strange and mysterious source. I think it is time we told the Canadian people that the strange and mysterious source from which they get these funds is their own pockets and nowhere else.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is good Liberal doctrine.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: What a change of policy.


Murdo William Martin: It is a good Liberal doctrine that was built up over 22 years and unfortunately has been carried on by the present Conservative government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are becoming reactionary.


Murdo William Martin: I do not intend to speak too long on the resolution. However, there is one more point I should like to raise. I see a danger if we pass the resolution before us today, the danger that we will fool the public once again into thinking that this is an answer to the problem. Certainly this is not an answer to the problem of our destitute widows across the country. It is no answer to extend the unemployment benefits for six weeks or six months or even one year. It is certainly no solution to the problem. The danger is that if we pass this measure then, along with the hodgepodge of other measures we have at the present time, we will once more be fooling a certain number of the people into thinking that the job is being done when in fact it is not. This is no more an answer to the problem than the



Unemployment Insurance Act hodgepodge of social security measures we have across the country at the present time.
Instead of passing a resolution in this form in an endeavour to try to solve this problem, I say that we should first try to get the unemployment insurance fund back to unemployment insurance principles, and then devise a comprehensive social security plan that will replace what we have at the present time.


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Speaker, as the last two speakers have indicated, there would appear to be general support for the suggestion that widows in this country should be adequately provided for. However, that it should be done by means of the Unemployment Insurance Act is, of course, not as acceptable. For one thing, as the hon. member for Timmins has pointed out, it would not provide adequate protection for them to any extent and, second, such action would be absolutely beyond the concept of the Unemployment Insurance Act. In raising this matter at this time I think the hon. member for Megantic has directed our attention to what should be contained in the Unemployment Insurance Act and how it should operate.
The hon. member for Timmins has had a good deal to say about returning to unemployment insurance principles. However, in discussing this matter with people generally across the country I find that everyone has a different idea of what are unemployment insurance principles. For instance, the hon. member for Marquette compared unemployment insurance to some extent with fire insurance. I suppose a great many people have that idea, that it does compare with that in principle. However, there are many different features in unemployment insurance as compared with fire insurance. For instance, it would not make any difference whether a man had made only one premium payment to the fire insurance company; if his house burned down he would receive the entire amount of money necessary to rebuild it. The Unemployment Insurance Act has never operated in that way, because the benefits a man receives are directly contingent upon what he has paid into the fund. His own protection is related to his accumulation of credits. I do not believe that this should be the case.
Unemployment, of course, has been a serious threat to the workingman of this country, and indeed throughout the world, for over 600 years. He has struggled during the course of that time to promote legislation which will give him adequate protection against unemployment. I can only say I would be opposed to bringing anything else into this act until such time as every employable person in the

labour force of this country is given adequate protection when he is unemployed through no fault of his own. This has not been done up to the moment. It is true that the present administration has made great steps forward in providing improved protection. However, the protection is not yet complete, because we have many people who are not covered by the act at all.
If the fund is going to be drained by people drawing out of it unnecessarily, then individuals are not going to be provided for properly. One of the things for which labour has struggled throughout the years has been recognition of the fact that a man who is unemployed through no fault of his own should be in a different category from those who are suffering other forms of hardship. During the long history of the unemployed this has been a difficult thing to achieve. As far back as 1300 there was unemployment and for 300 years after that time, generally speaking, the unemployed were treated as criminals. Then for the next 300 years they were treated generally as paupers.
During this century, in most countries in the world we have made some great advances in providing protection for unemployed men. However, the unemployed man has never achieved the main principle which I believe should be accepted, and that is that a man has a right to a job. He has the right to a job or he has the right to adequate compensation for the loss of that job. I envisage the Unemployment Insurance Act, therefore, as working generally in the same way as the workmen's compensation act works. Under that act a person is compensated for the loss of his job through injury. I can only say that as long as a person is ready, willing and able to work and is in the labour force, I believe he is entitled to compensation from society if he should lose his job through no fault of his own.
When we consider the great many ways in which a man can lose a job through no fault of his own we can begin to realize just how important a proposition this may be. The most outstanding example of this, of course, and the one about which we hear most these days, is automation and technological improvements. This is one way in which a man can lose a job through no fault of his own. Perhaps the decline or decay of his trade may be another example, or the bankruptcy of his employer. There are thousands of ways in which he can lose his job through no fault of his own. When he loses his job his family suffers hardship because, under the present set-up, when the man's benefits expire he then goes on some form of unemployment assistance. This means that he is required to meet a means test. He may

lose his home and his assets, all the things for which he has worked during a lifetime, by reason of a situation which is beyond his own control.
I do not believe this should be the case. I therefore believe that the present act, instead of being opened to take in other groups as suggested in this resolution, should go forward and provide adequate protection for every employable person in this country. I believe that can be done very easily without causing any strain on the fund or upon the taxpayers of this country.
If the kind of benefits I suggest were provided, of course, there would need to be some limitations placed in the act. I would think the main principle to be incorporated in this act should be that a man is entitled either to a job or to adequate compensation if he is out of work through no fault of his own. I believe that every employable person in the labour force who is employed should contribute to the fund, regardless of his income or occupation. I say that because at the moment the contributors to the fund seem to be mainly those who are unsteady workers, and those who are steady workers seem to be left out. I think the civil service is a good example of this. The civil servants say, "We should not have to contribute to this fund; we work steadily and we are not out of a job." There are many civil servants, however, who are out of a job, civil servants who are employed on a seasonal basis.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he speaking to notice of motion No. 3 or to notice of motion No. 44?


John Ferguson Browne: Perhaps the hon. member's question would be better directed to Mr. Speaker. So far as I am aware, he is the one who will consider that question. I am glad to note that the hon. member for Port Arthur is showing some interest in the workings of the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have the greatest number of unemployed in Canada at the lakehead.


John Ferguson Browne: Perhaps the hon. member will take advantage of the opportunity to show us when the time comes. Perhaps if some people who are now drawing upon this fund were prohibited from doing so this would reduce the number of unemployed in Canada. In fact I was noticing just the other day that almost half the total unemployed in Canada are young, single persons residing at home with their parents. I do not believe there are many countries in the world that would consider these people unemployed. Most of them should be in school learning a trade or
Unemployment Insurance Act a proper skill so they would be able to enter the labour force and take care of themselves adequately. Then again, we know that many of those who are drawing unemployment insurance benefits are married women. It would be very difficult to prove whether or not they are interested in obtaining jobs. When they are compared with the single women covered under the act, their record is certainly very poor.
I notice that information was given to the Senate committee on manpower the other day to the effect that 85 per cent of the married women registered in the national employment service offices in September were unemployment insurance claimants. Of course these women are listed as unemployed, and they help to build up the high statistical figure for unemployment that we have in this country as compared with other countries in which the same course is not followed. This report indicated also that 77.8 per cent of the married women who were registered for unemployment insurance benefits had husbands who were working full time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: When?


John Ferguson Browne: At
the time they were claimants. I do not believe the average person in this country feels that a married woman in that category should draw benefits from the fund. We do not even know, and we are not able to ascertain, whether she is willing to work, because in some instances there are not jobs to offer and it is a very difficult thing to determine whether a woman is actually out looking for work. Because of drains of this kind upon the fund we are not giving adequate protection to those who do need it.
I believe in this way the resolution before us today has a very direct bearing on the Unemployment Insurance Act, because provision for widows could in large measure be obtained by life insurance. That would be a more adequate and proper form of insurance through which to protect widows. However, the workingman in this country is not at all times able to provide adequate life insurance. It is one of those things he hesitates to take on because it is a payment he must meet every month. While he is working he may well be able to make those payments. However, with the uncertainty of employment hanging over his head all the time, he hesitates to take on those payments to provide for his wife and family, even though he could afford to do so if he were working all the time.
Therefore if we were to put ourselves in the position where we could ensure that the workingman of this country was going to have an adequate income, whether he was

Unemployment Insurance Act employed or unemployed, then he would be in a much better position to provide that kind of insurance for his family. He would know that his income was not going to stop entirely, or that he was not going to have to meet a means test which might require him to give up all his assets before he was entitled to receive benefit payments.
That is why I believe there should be some limitations upon the act. Again, I think, there are many other people drawing out of the fund unfairly. For instance, take the case of a seasonal worker. He pays into the fund for perhaps eight months. He may earn a considerable income in those eight months because, generally speaking, those employed in seasonal industries earn higher wages than those in the other fields of employment, because of the very fact that their employment is seasonal.
I was just taking a look at this publication, "Employment and Payrolls" for September, 1960. It shows that the average wage in Canada, according to the industrial composite, is $76.57 per week. However, that is only a national average, and when we come to consider the individual industries there is quite a large variation. For instance, in the mining industry the average wage is $93.50 a week. On the other hand, in service industries the average wage is $53.16 a week. There is quite a difference; that is almost half the average weekly mining wage.
So in actual fact a person might well be in a seasonal industry and earn as much in eight months as a worker in a different industry might earn in 12 months. It would be most unfair that the one man should pay into the unemployment insurance fund for 12 months while the other man who earned perhaps a greater salary in the eight months he worked should draw benefits out of that fund for four months.
For that reason I suggest there must be a limitation placed upon the amount which a man can earn and still draw from the fund. All these kinds of things are necessary if we are going to provide adequate protection. I believe that providing an adequate level of income for the workingman would overcome many of the other difficulties in which he is placed, including this one that has been brought to our attention today, of making adequate protection for his widow. Therefore I suggest that rather than dragging other people into the fund at this time we should place a limitation upon the amount of wages a man can earn and still draw benefit from the fund.
For the purpose of setting forth these principles that I think should be contained in the act I have used the figure of $4,000. The reason I use that figure is that it is

just on the national average that I have already outlined. The national average weekly wage is $76.50. Four thousand dollars per annum, which is the figure I have suggested as a limit for the purpose of setting forth the principle, amounts to $76.90 per week.
It is obvious that here again a uniform payment across the country would not be fair or reasonable and it may have to be set on a regional basis, because when we come to look at the various areas in the country it can be seen from this same publication "Employment and Payrolls," September, 1960, that the average wage in British Columbia is $83.66 per week. On the other hand, in Prince Edward Island it is $53.72 per week. Therefore I think it would be unreasonable that the ceiling should be the same in Prince Edward Island and British Columbia. That would have to be taken into consideration in enacting the principles I have suggested. Having suggested that in my view a person who has earned in excess of $4,000, with the variation for regional differences that I have outlined-


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am very much interested in resolution No. 44, which has been placed on the order paper by the hon. member who is speaking. I am also interested not only in the resolution to which we are supposedly addressing our minds, but the next one and the one after that, which I hope we may get a chance to debate today.
I suggest, with all deference to the very fine speech the hon. member is making, that he is off the point of the resolution that is before us, which deals with amending the Unemployment Insurance Act so that the benefits payable to any Canadian worker would be payable to his widow. I suggest that if you look closely at resolution No. 44, which the hon. member has been able to give us in great detail, you will find he is making a splendid speech supporting that resolution. I submit that this is out of order. I hope we can hear him on this one some future date.


Richard Devere Thrasher: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to discuss the Unemployment Insurance Act without discussing the whole act. It is very difficult to take out one part of the act or suggest an amendment to one part of the act and discuss it without bringing in the ramifications and effects it would have on the whole of the act, the original purpose of the act, the principles on which it was founded and the purposes it presently serves. It seems to me it would be very difficult if we attempted to confine the hon. member to the very narrow limits which this resolution encompasses. It seems to me that if we are

to have a proper discussion of this resolution we have to take in the whole ambit of the act.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member who has the floor anything to say about the line he has been following, to which exception has been taken?


John Ferguson Browne: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have indicated that in connection with this resolution that is before us my feeling is that if the Unemployment Insurance Act carried out the principles upon which it was founded, and extended them to the level to which they should be extended, it would be unnecessary to undertake the course of action advocated by the hon. member for Megantic.
In order to demonstrate that, I believe it is necessary to indicate clearly how I feel the act should operate within its present principles, without extending it to bringing in this new class that would be brought in by the hon. member for Megantic.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I just say a word on this subject. One does not like to interfere with a speech in which an hon. gentleman is engaged, obviously with the desirability of making a constructive suggestion, but I think it is difficult not to accede to the intervention of the hon. member for Port Arthur.
We have before us a specific resolution, and of course thus far the debate has covered a very wide range. If we are going to allow that to take place we will want, of course, to discuss some very fundamental matters affecting the fund, matters that have already been raised in this house and to which the government has not directed its attention or given any proper response.
In addition, this is a device-possibly not deliberately employed by the hon. member -being very adroitly employed by him to circumvent the practice which has prevailed in regard to the methods used to give priority to resolutions that appear under notices of motions. The resolution now before the house is the resolution put forward by the hon. member for Megantic. The resolution to which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has been addressing himself is the last resolution listed under notices of motion. In other words, as a result of what the hon. member has been doing he has been able to discuss his resolution ahead of all the other resolutions that precede it. Included in that number would be resolution No. 25, in my name, asking the house to give consideration to the following:
90205-G-112
Unemployment Insurance Act That in the opinion of this house the government should consider the advisability of extending the benefits of unemployment insurance to those Canadians who are unemployed because of illness.
I am simply pointing out that I would be perfectly justified in rising to discuss that resolution which I am sure will commend itself to every member of this house. I should be amazed if the government were to oppose that resolution. If the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway can discuss his resolution, there is no reason why we cannot discuss our respective resolutions, nor is there any reason why we cannot engage now-and this might be a very desirable thing-in a real debate upon the fundamental point, namely that the fund which would make these various measures possible is in a very perilous state.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, hon. gentlemen say "order" but they did not say "order" a few moments ago. They only raise objection when some member of the Liberal party in particular seeks to put the house right.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no doubt in my mind that the point of order is well taken. Without leave of the house the debate cannot be extended to embrace the other two resolutions, which are quite easily distinguishable and separate from the resolution now before the house. This is a very narrow resolution which calls for an extension of the benefits available to the worker under the act to his widow, and I must ask hon. members to observe the normal practice of debate and keep to the point which is before us.


John Ferguson Browne: I wonder if I might say a word on the question of anticipating a later resolution? It is quite evident that that resolution will never come before the house this session. It would therefore be impossible to use the argument that I am anticipating that resolution and debating it before it comes to the house. I might add that I think it would be impossible to discuss this question without going into the principles of the act. Otherwise one could only say "I want them in" or "I want them out". I do not see how it would be possible to present any arguments. However, I am sure the hon. member for Essex East will feel that he has achieved his purpose in preventing the proposals I have here being put before the house. I am sure he does not want to see them discussed.


Mr, Speaker:: I cannot accede to the proposition which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is making. It is the rule of relevancy which is involved, not the rule of anticipation, and unless the house gives some
1764	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act direction that all three resolutions may be debated, or waives its customary practice in respect of relevancy in debate, the hon. member will have to confine his remarks to the matter which is before us.


John Ferguson Browne: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to obey your ruling. However, I find it difficult to visualize what that would entail because, as I say, I do not know what arguments can be presented in support of my contention that these people should not be covered as suggested in this resolution unless I am free to suggest how I think the act should operate. It is difficult to deal directly with the proposition I have been putting forward. I have indicated, however, that I feel that if the act were properly drafted it would be unnecessary to include these people, and I do not see how I can pursue that argument without being allowed to say how I think the act should operate. Perhaps Your Honour might offer some guidance. I do not think it is sufficient for me to rise and simply say that I am not in favour of this resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can help the hon. member. If he would look upon this resolution as calling for an amendment to the act in the particular which is mentioned, that is, to provide that in the event of the death of a member entitled to benefits his widow could have those benefits, he would see that the amendment would not open up the whole of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which deals with countless other propositions.
It seems to me that this is a clearly distinguishable and fairly narrow resolution, and I should not be doing my duty if I allowed the debate to stray from a course which can be clearly charted, particularly as objection has been taken.


John Ferguson Browne: In the
light of Your Honour's ruling I shall have to omit some of the remarks I had wished to make and reserve them until a later time. However, I do wish to say that in my opinion the act at the present time is not providing adequate benefits for the workingmen in this country. They are not protected for long enough, and they are not protected at a sufficiently high level. Before any other group is offered any further protection under this act I want to see the act provide, as it should for the working people of this country, adequate benefits at an adequate level.


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: I am rising to support the motion. It seems to me that this resolution is designed to give a measure of protection to a class of people who need it badly at a particular time. In addition, it seems to me, it is in keeping 

with the spirit of the act. I am aware that the Unemployment Insurance Act cannot be extended into the whole field of welfare, but this particular resolution is designed to deal with one particular aspect of it, namely making available to the widow the benefits which the husband would have received had he lived, benefits which he would have used in the support of his wife and family.
The intention is clearly to make it possible for the widow to receive the benefits for which her husband had paid while he was alive. For instance, if the man had paid contributions under the Unemployment Insurance Act and had qualified for benefit and died, this resolution would allow the widow to receive the benefits to which he would have been entitled. As hon. members know, the time immediately after death is a very awkward time for the family. It is immediately after the death of the breadwinner that assistance is needed.
I do not think I need go into the humanitarian aspects of the motion. Everyone knows the acute need which exists, particularly in the homes of those people who depend on daily work for daily bread. It has been suggested that the motion has sentimental value. I would rather say it is humanitarian in its intention and eminently practicable. I have great pleasure in supporting a bill which deals with this specific need and meets a specific lack in the present Unemployment Insurance Act.
(Translation):
Mr. L. J, Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assomplion-Monicalm): Mr. Speaker, the principle of this resolution commends itself in some ways, but such legislation would be very difficult to apply because, when for instance the head of the family dies while working, the widow is entitled to the benefits provided by the workmen's compensation act, which applies in all this country's provinces. If that is not the case, a widow with children under 16 years of age may receive the pension for needy mothers, or an old age pension. Moreover, in the province of Quebec, when the pension for needy mothers or the old age pension proves inadequate, the person concerned can go to a social service centre where her case receives serious consideration and she is, under certain conditions, granted an additional monthly allowance in cash to supplement her revenue.
The hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) said a few moments ago that the widow is not entitled to an allowance until some time after her husband's death. I shall therefore remind him that, in the province of Quebec, the widow may appeal to a social service centre, and until she is able to get

a needy mothers' pension or any other pension, the social centre will supply the amounts required for her own and her children's support.
To my mind, the formula advocated by the hon. member for Megantic will be difficult to apply even if it should apply to some special case.
If my memory does not deceive me and my information is correct, any employee, who retires at the age of 65, for instance, after regularly contributing to the unemployment insurance fund may, under a section of the Unemployment Insurance Act be authorized by the government to draw the unused portion of his benefits for several months. Now if the said employee happens to die during a period in which he was receiving unemployment insurance benefits, and before they are exhausted, the Unemployment Insurance Act might be amended so as to allow the widow of the beneficiary to draw the portion of benefits to which her husband was still entitled.
To my mind, the Unemployment Insurance Act should be completely amended and transformed, and even have its title changed into employment insurance act.
Recently, a distinguished canon of the diocese of Joliette, whom I shall not name, sent me an editorial, asking that such an amendment be introduced in this house. I shall later have the opportunity of dealing with this matter when we discuss the labour estimates.
I believe it will also be advisable to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act so as to allow farmers, hospital employees, seasonal workers, and even those who are working in a family business, to benefit under that legislation, and I strongly urge the government of the province of Quebec to approach the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) and suggest that employees of the department of highways in the province of Quebec, especially part-time workers, be allowed to qualify under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say those few words in connection with this resolution. I know that its aim is limited, and that it is somewhat difficult for us to speak in a more general way on the Unemployment Insurance Act. There would be a great deal to say on this matter in the interest of the people of Canada. But I shall limit myself to stating that the motion introduced by the hon. member for Megantic, is substantially good legislation and, even if it were very difficult to apply, certainly deserves to be discussed, and in some cases applied, so as to make unemployment benefits available to widows.
90205-6-U2i
Unemployment Insurance Act
(Text):


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the speeches made by the hon. member for Megantic, the sponsor of this resolution, and the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, who spoke in support of it. I welcome this resolution because it serves to highlight a problem we have in Canada. It underlines the fact that we do not have a comprehensive social security system in this country. I regret that history has shown that we adopt our social security system by bits and pieces. Over the years new items of legislation have been introduced, but even today we realize that many people deserving of consideration on the part of society are not receiving the required consideration.
I have examined the social security systems in other nations of the western world. Only the Netherlands has a system that is more complicated and piecemeal than ours. In most nations of the world the problem of social security has been tackled in one fell swoop.
I regret that I must oppose the resolution now before us because it is a violation of the basic principles of the Unemployment Insurance Act. May I underline the word "insurance". I give the sponsor of this resolution full marks for having regard for the widows of men who die while they are enjoying unemployment insurance benefits. However, may I ask the hon. gentleman what consideration he would give those widows after the expiry of those benefits? After all, we know there is a limit to the number of months a man can enjoy benefits under this legislation. Worthy as her cause may be, to appeal on behalf of the widow for only those limited months during which her deceased husband would have been in receipt of unemployment insurance appears to be most inadequate.
If we had a transferrable, portable pension plan as advocated by hon. members of this group over the years, and if we had a comprehensive social security plan we would not have to worry about the idiosyncrasies of existing legislation. We would not have, in the light of important national problems, to move resolutions of relatively minor importance even though they may be of major significance to the individuals involved at the time. I am rather disappointed that a spokesman for the Liberal party attempts to involve this house in a day long debate on a minor resolution having to do with only one of our social security laws in order to obtain benefits for a very limited number of people. We in our group humbly submit that the time of this house could be

Unemployment Insurance Act put to better use and even the attendance in this house might be greatly enhanced if we were to engage in an all-out campaign to replace the existing piecemeal legislation that we now have with an over-all basic social security law.
We have pensions for the blind; we have pensions for the handicapped; we have old age pensions; we have pensions for those over 70; we have pensions for veterans; we have pensions for the burnt-out veterans; we have pensions for the youngster aged from zero to 16; we have pensions for this and pensions for that, each with its fantastically costly overhead and administration. I am sure if we analysed what the taxpayers of Canada are paying for social security at the present time, with all the overhead, all the red tape and the paper work involved, together with the means tests and all the rest of it, and compared that with the cost of a basic, comprehensive social security system as they have in the United Kingdom and in most of the other western nations of the world, we would realize that we are heading in the wrong direction with our little amendments here and our new acts there to look after another little category and the whole hierarchy of administration involved. I believe we would easily recognize in our investigation that we should offer to our people a basic minimum standard of living at a much lower cost. Therefore, we feel this is wrong in so far as the basic principle is concerned. It is also a violation of the intent of the Unemployment Insurance Act to introduce the amendment of-ferred in this resolution.


Margaret Aitken: Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution that I approve of but with reservations. The first question I should like to ask the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) is, how much would this cost the taxpayers? It is so much easier for opposition members to introduce amendments, bills or resolutions than it is for members on the government side to accept them because the government side has to find the money for them.
What the hon. member for Megantic is really doing is to add to the Unemployment Insurance Act a life insurance clause. What I should like to see set up is a separate fund for widows, to which management, workers and government would contribute, and from this fund would go benefits to the widow whose late husband has been entitled to benefits from the Unemployment Insurance Act. In other words, it would be quite separate from the act.


Erhart Regier: Another plan?


Margaret Aitken: Yes, another plan, not in the Unemployment Insurance Act. I make this suggestion because there are tens of thousands of Canadians contributing to the Unemployment Insurance Act who never have and never will collect a cent. They are the ones who bitterly resent the chiselling that has been exposed in regard to the Unemployment Insurance Act, and they are the ones who feel bitter when they are told by such a man as the economist Warren James, when he spoke before the Senate manpower committee, that nearly a hundred thousand people were not genuinely claimants for benefits but were collecting them. It seems to me it is grossly unfair to the honest contributors who will never collect from the fund that this should be going on, and it would be even more unfair to give benefits to the widows of unemployed men who were collecting benefits and not give the same pensions to all widows of men who had contributed to that fund. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, this would deplete the unemployment insurance fund in no time at all.
We all agree that the Unemployment Insurance Act is a fine piece of legislation; it is a bulwark against anyone actually suffering while unemployed, but it cannot be treated as an elastic band and stretched beyond capacity. That is why I say this resolution is a good one but I do not believe it should be implemented through amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Instead, it should be a separate piece of legislation. I believe that a separate fund could be set up to which we would all contribute and from which widows of contributors might collect benefits for X number of weeks. This at least would alleviate some of the financial worries after the death of the breadwinner.
While on this subject, Mr. Speaker, may I say there seems to have been pretty general unanimity here this afternoon on the subject of benefits for widows, but I should like to point out that members of the House of Commons have not been practising what they preach. They have shown a very marked lack of generosity in regard to the widows of members of parliament. A man may serve his country for 25 or 30 years as a member of parliament and contribute to a pension retiring fund which is actuarially sound and yet when he dies his widow gets no pension. I do not believe the average Canadian appreciates the sacrifice that a politician's wife is called upon to make, both in the disrupting of family life and in being exposed to the rough and tumble of political life. I believe it would be a fine thing if we could set up a fund for the widows of men who have contributed to the unemployment insurance fund. I also think it would be a just act if we could extend the

payments that members of parliament make to their pension plan so that their widows might also benefit.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a word on this resolution which no doubt has a great appeal to the Canadian people in general and more especially to the humanitarian aspect which is found in all of us. During the course of the debate this afternoon something was said about the danger that would arise in introducing changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act which, if the intent of the resolution is accepted, would place an additional drain on the fund.
The hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) favoured the establishment of a separate fund to take care of widows. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in order to appreciate the intent of the resolution one should have an understanding of the Unemployment Insurance Act which was introduced in 1941 by a Liberal government. Under this act unemployment insurance is contributory and each of the contributory groups, that is, government, employer and employee, has a direct interest in the insurance fund. In dealing with individual claims the rights of all contributors must be considered. The receipt of a benefit is a statutory right of the claimant who has met the required conditions. In other words, when an insured person makes a claim he is asking for something to which he is entitled and is not asking for a gift. It is a right which cannot be attacked even by a court of law. By that I mean that it cannot be denied in any way or be subjected to garnishee by a court of law.
The moneys in the unemployment insurance fund may be used for only two purposes, namely for those who are rightly entitled to make claim for benefit and, second, by way of a refund of contributions if contributions were made in error. To be entitled to a claim for benefit, therefore, one must have been a contributor and establish proof of a contribution record of not less than 30 weeks. Another condition required is that the individual demonstrate that he is capable of and available for work but unable to obtain work that he can perform.
The suggestion contained in the resolution that the benefits legally due to a claimant based on his record of contributions be paid to his widow may be contradictory to the basic principles on which unemployment insurance was conceived. However, the resolution does not presume that upon the death of the insured the benefits would be paid to his widow if the employee had not been drawing unemployment insurance at the time
Unemployment Insurance Act of his death. The widow would only be entitled to the benefits until entitlement is exhausted.
It can be argued that if such an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act as would conform with the intent of the resolution were to be made it would be a precedent which, if extended, would ultimately impose a still greater drain on the fund which is now dangerously near being depleted without the assumption of additional burdens. Notwithstanding the fact that the widow could not be deemed to have made any contributions to the fund, nor could the interpretation be that she would have assumed the place of her deceased husband in the labour market, the benefits which she would receive under this amendment would be very modest indeed.
I fully realize that every insured person under the act is issued an insurance number for life. The number is not transferable and upon the death of the insured it is retired and never again used by anyone. The number, therefore, is positive identification which gives the insured person the right to benefit.
In spite of all the objections which have been raised this afternoon I would urge hon. members to examine the resolution carefully in the light of the humanitarian aspect of its intent, and I wish to commend the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) for introducing a measure for the consideration of the house which, if approved, would give a little lift to some of those who have suffered that irreparable loss which no material benefits can possibly replace.


Edwin William Brunsden: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


Edwin William Brunsden: This is for clarification only. He speaks of the payment of unemployment insurance benefits by right or by need. I am just wondering whether he carries that principle into the payment of unemployment insurance itself regardless of the aspect of widows.


Hubert Badanai: The purport of the resolution is that an amendment would be introduced which would make it possible to pay to the widow the benefits accrued by the deceased if he was unemployed when he died. If he was working at the time of his death or before his death then the benefit would not apply. That is the point.


William Murray Smith: Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that the significant words of the resolution are "benefits to which a Canadian worker would have been entitled be made available to his widow". In discussing a resolution of this nature I

Unemployment Insurance Act feel that we must look not only at the specific words but at the benefits in general that are paid out of the unemployment insurance fund. In effect this resolution would introduce a new class of persons who would draw benefits from the fund. I should like to say that for a member who has placed the same resolution on the order paper on past occasions I thought that while his motives may have been sound and sincere he did a somewhat inadequate job of introducing the resolution. I feel that he could have clarified it much better and advanced many more arguments in favour of the resolution than he did.
For example, certain questions came to my mind immediately when I read the resolution. How long would the widow be entitled to draw benefits? Would she be entitled to draw them for the same period that her deceased husband would have been entitled to draw benefits? Would she be entitled to draw benefits for life? What would happen in the case of a man who died say next Monday and would have been laid off next Tuesday and thus be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits? What would happen to his widow? Would she be entitled to draw benefits? Where would the dividing line be drawn? If the widow is entitled to draw benefits for life, are we not in fact setting up a new pension scheme paid for by the taxpayers of this country? I feel that all of these questions should have been explained to us by those who advocate that this resolution be passed.
The hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) also mentioned that this resolution is in accordance with the general policy of the Liberal party. This was a rather frightful statement when we realize that those who were placed in a position to draw seasonal benefits by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) are responsible for some of the depletion of the fund today. Now we have a member of the Liberal party attempting to add another class of people to those entitled to draw from this fund, thus further depleting it. The hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) adequately pointed out that we must be concerned about the cost not only to the fund but to the contributors to the fund, the taxpayers of the country, the employees and employers of the country.
I was very pleased to hear the remarks made by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin), for whom I have a regard almost equal to his vastness. He mentioned that the fund was designed for one specific purpose when it was originally set up and now, because of Liberal policy referred to by the bon. member for Megantic, we find the fund being spread across all the social problems

with which we are faced today. As a result of this the public of this country, and particularly those who pay into the unemployment insurance fund, have come to think of this fund as an inexhaustible source of money which can be used for almost any reason. Indeed, this is no exaggeration when we look at the abuses that are heaped upon this fund today by employers as well as employees.
I heartily endorse the suggestion made by the hon. member for Timmins that the policing of the fund is no answer but rather that we need a system of education in this country to show the people that they have an interest in this fund and that it should not be abused. We should show the people why the fund should be operated on sound insurance principles for the benefit of the worker and the employer.
I was very sorry that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) was not permitted to continue his argument as to why the widow of a deceased worker should not be allowed to draw from this fund. When a person stands up and says he is opposed to this resolution that may be construed by some as being against any help whatever for widows. I do not believe any member of this house, regardless of where he sits, regardless of what stand he takes on this resolution, could in all fairness be said to be against relief for widows.
However, in considering relief for widows do we not have to go farther than the UnEmployment Insurance Act? Are there not other agencies in this country that have a part to play so far as pensions to widows are concerned, particularly widows of deceased workmen? If you consider the widows of deceased workmen, why not consider widows generally? Do not municipalities have a part to play? Do not the provinces have an obligation? Why must everything come from the unemployment insurance fund? Why set up another drain on the fund? Why should not other methods and means be explored? I, Mr. Speaker, am against this resolution for the reasons that I have outlined and also because I feel this government is possibly more concerned with the unemployed in this country than either of the parties sitting in opposition.
The speech from the throne contained the announcement that amendments would be made to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I believe this government is studying the whole operation of the act with a view to providing a comprehensive program that will embrace not only unemployed persons but those seasonal workers who are not drawing from the fund. This is my hope and my expectation as a believer in sound principles of conservatism. I think there is a great deal

of merit in the suggestion that two funds should be set up. Indeed, there is a great deal of merit in the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way before he was prohibited, under the rules, from continuing his line of discussion.
There are many ways in which we could stop the drain on the fund. What about those who are coming into the labour market today? It has been advocated in some quarters that we should have a program of conscription in order to train the young people coming on to the labour market, and who are not able to find jobs. They would achieve the necessary skills after they had served their term in uniform.


Erhart Regier: Shame on that.


William Murray Smith: The hon. member says, "Shame on that". His party is well known for their stand on pacifism and neutralism, but we will debate those subjects at some other time.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I sincerely hope some of the colleagues of the hon. member for Megantic, particularly the hon. member for Essex East, will endeavour to clarify some of the questions I have raised. I hope they will put forward some arguments that have a sounder basis than those that have been put forward so far.
It is all well and good to sit in the opposition and say that we must provide benefits for the widows of deceased workers. But what are the solutions to the problems? Where is the money to come from? How much is it going to cost the fund? Has any estimate been made of that? What happens in the case of the widow of a worker who dies a day or two before he is entitled to draw benefits? There are many aspects of this question that must be explored and many questions that must be answered. I hope some of the colleagues of the hon. member for Megantic will undertake this task on his behalf.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. He has repeated something that we have known for a long time, i.e. that the Conservative government has no other policy, to solve the unemployment problem, as the hon. member has just indicated, than to conscript the unemployed.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: That is not what he said. He did not say that.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I do not know whether that idea reflects the policy of the Conservative party but, once again, it is not the first time that it is being put forward. Besides, if the hon. member who has just resumed his
Unemployment Insurance Act seat had nothing else to submit to us, he could very well have abstained from speaking on this resolution. I quite understand his general argument to the effect that the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) has not supplemented this resolution with sufficient details to provide for all cases.
This is not a bill. It is a resolution. The hon. member for Megantic is merely asking us to support a principle. And, obviously, if the majority of members voted in favour of the resolution, it would then be in order to draft a bill containing more details.
But, for the time being, we are concerned here with a principle, and, as a representative of a labour constituency, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for submitting that fine idea which is bound to benefit workers in general.
I am delighted that such an idea should have come from a Liberal member, as everyone knows that, from time immemorial, in the field of social security, the Liberals have always put forward ideas and principles designed to fight all forms of ignorance and insecurity. You will recall that last year in the industrial relations committee, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) introduced a motion dealing with unemployment.
(Text):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is out of order.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I am out of order, and I shall go on with my remarks so that you can judge by yourself.
Last year, the hon. member for Essex East asked that unemployment under all its aspects be debated and if such a discussion had taken place, we would have been able to examine this particular situation in which a family finds itself when the father is unemployed; but it was never discussed. And this is what brought up the idea behind this resolution.
Of course, when the father is unemployed, the family, the children cannot enjoy the same standard of living as other Canadians; they have to do without drugs, they are destitute and some of them cannot even continue their studies. It is quite easy to understand that if the father dies in such circumstances, the widow finds herself in an extremely difficult situation. Therefore, I feel

Unemployment Insurance Act that we, the legislators who should make possible a reasonable level of living for all Canadians, should give particular attention to those who are destitute. I think this is where lies the merit of this resolution to make available to the widow of a Canadian citizen the unemployment benefits to which the latter would normally have been entitled.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the workers in general and organized labour in particular will pay attention to the idea put forward by the hon. member for Megantic.
I do not think that we should vote against this resolution or extend this debate until ten o'clock without knowing whether the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) or the government are in favour of the principle of this resolution.
With unemployment at a record level in this country at the present time, the family should be given a measure of security, and I do not think the government should deal lightly with this question as did the hon. member who spoke before me. As I say, most Canadians would favour this principle which affects the working class.
The hon. member for Megantic is only asking that we declare ourselves in favour of this resolution and then, in due time, a legislation containing all the details that have not been explained so far could be introduced in this house.
(Text):


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to express briefly my views on the subject dealt with by this resolution. I assume that the mover, knowing how often widows are left in difficult financial circumstances, wishes to assist at least those whose husbands are entitled to benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I, too, well realize the need. I know of many cases where widows are in very needy circumstances, where the husband was unable for one reason or another, to provide for his widow. Indeed I know of many cases where the husband was unable to provide for his own funeral expenses.
Some may feel that this is the man's own fault if he did not make this provision while living so that his widow and family would be provided for after his death. There may be cases where this is true; but, generally speaking, when a man fails to provide for his widow it is because he was unable to do so. Even if no provision was made through the man's own fault because he may have been a spendthrift, as was suggested by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk), that does not alter the fact that the widow is in real need of assistance. Therefore I think that the object which this resolution seeks

to obtain is a worthy one and one which will meet with general approval.
I think we should realize that husbands, especially those in the lower income group, just cannot always make adequate provision for their wives and children because the income they earn must be used for the maintenance of the home and family. So that too often, and much too often, men die and leave their widows in desperate financial circumstances. I am referring to those who do not leave estates, as was referred to by the sponsor of the resolution in his remarks.
This is true not only when, unfortunately, a young man dies leaving young children, but it is also true of older men whose families have grown and have established homes of their own. I realize, of course, that in many cases some provisions are made by governments. If a man dies, leaving children under 16 years of age, the widow will receive mother's allowance from the provincial authorities until the children are 16 years of age. This has already been mentioned by some previous speakers. If the widow is 65 years of age she can receive old age assistance. There is also workmen's compensation, and so on.
But there are many who do not qualify for any of these benefits. If they are in need they can only apply for assistance under the social assistance act where this is in effect. I know that in my own province of Nova Scotia this is only paid if the municipality has agreed to share the cost, and certainly in Nova Scotia they have not all done so. Even where it is paid it is not the answer. There is still the idea of receiving public charity; there is no certainty that it will continue to be paid. I believe widows deserve better from their country. I think they should have that peace of mind, that feeling of security, which a pension gives when they receive assistance as a matter of right, not as charity and not as a favour.
Let us examine the situation which faces many women when their husbands die. At such a time there is always a need of money and often there is none. It is a time of severe emotional distress. Many adjustments have to be made, and it is at this most difficult time a widow has to face financial distress and make many difficult decisions. I know that younger women, if they have had special training before marriage, can often return to work. One sees them working as teachers, nurses, stenographers, office clerks and the like. But for a woman over 50 years of age it is another matter. She has spent her adult life as a homemaker. There is no possibility of employment for her; she has none of the skills or training necessary for a position in business or industry.

Personally, I believe the Canadian people have an obligation towards these widows, an obligation we should recognize and fulfil.
The amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act proposed by this resolution would not solve the whole problem. Yet it would be of some assistance to many widows, and it is for this reason I support it. I well realize it would not assist those widows whose husbands did not come under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Further, it would not help those whose husbands had used up their benefits, and these in all probability would be in a worse financial position than widows whose husbands had not drawn such benefits. Again, if a man prior to his death had been receiving benefits there might be very little left for the widow to receive.
I well understand also that the Unemployment Insurance Act was not designed to make the proposed payments, to widows; it was not meant to be life insurance. Indeed, it is more in the nature of sickness or accident insurance. I suppose some people feel that since they have made contributions under the Unemployment Insurance Act, perhaps for many years, and received no benefits, their widows should receive them. I do not think this would apply any more than one would expect to get back premiums under an accident policy if one did not have an accident.
I think if this amendment were adopted there would have to be an increase in the contributions made by employers and employees, and there may be considerable opposition to this. Perhaps it is not practical to amend the act as this resolution seeks to do. As to this I express no opinion. If it can be done and I repeat, if it can be done, I would suggest that all widows of men who made contributions be treated equally and that any benefits received by the husbands be disregarded. I would further suggest that all such widows receive a lump sum payment or a weekly payment regardless of whether the husbands had received benefits, or, indeed, had exhausted their benefits under the act.
I think the mover of the resolution has performed a very useful service in bringing this problem to the attention of the house. It serves the purpose of focusing the attention of this house on the gap, as it were, which exists in our social security system. We do not have provision for the widows left in poor circumstances I have mentioned. Indeed, we do not have provision, either, for those older unmarried women who are without adequate means of support and who do not qualify for any of the various pensions now in effect. I believe the Canadian people would welcome the opportunity to make pro-
Unemployment Insurance Act vision for pensions for those unmarried women who need assistance, or who will need assistance long before they would qualify for old age assistance. I hope it will not be too long before provision can be made so that those widows and those unmarried women I have mentioned will be receiving some form of pension. The need is there, and the need is great.
In any event, the proposal before us would, if adopted, give needed assistance to some widows at least.


Robert Simpson: The resolution with which we are dealing today is one which I believe should be considered from every possible angle, because I am of the opinion that all members of this house are sincerely concerned about any situation where a widow finds herself in financial difficulties as a result of the loss of the family breadwinner.
Most of us at one time or another have witnessed the very difficult circumstances in which some widows find themselves. I know we all feel very strongly that various means should be provided in order that these financial difficulties might be in some way alleviated. Fortunately the financial situation does not always present the same degree of hardship. As has been mentioned today there are various provisions for the assistance of widows. Some hon. members have mentioned widows' allowances, which are available if financial circumstances prove them to be necessary. I believe this is a very worth-while social measure. Other hon. members have pointed out that compensation is sometimes available. We must, of course, remember that generally compensation is only available if a death occurs as a result of injury or accident, in which case it is doubtful whether the Unemployment Insurance Act would be effective anyway because in a great many of these compensation cases death is caused while the person concerned is on the job in which case, of course, there would be no eligibility for benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I notice one interesting point about this resolution. The hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) who proposed it specifically mentioned widows. As I say, that is commendable, and he is to be congratulated for having brought it to the attention of the house. However, there are many cases in close relation to this subject, which should, possibly, be given equal consideration. One that occurs to me is the case of a widower qualified to receive benefit, dies and has one or more small children. I think the situation there would be of the same nature as the one we have been considering, and the situation would perhaps
1772	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act be more difficult than the situation of a widow left with small children. Of course, there are many cases where as the result of the husband's inability to work due to physical handicaps the woman of the family is the only breadwinner. In the event of her death, if she were drawing unemployment insurance benefits at that time, you would have a widower who is unable to work and possibly dependent small children. I notice that these cases have not been taken into consideration in this resolution and it is a cause of some wonderment to me why this eventuality should not have been included.
This resolution-as is the case with one or two provisions now included in the regulations under the Unemployment Insurance Act-is in the nature of a definite departure from the original concept of unemployment insurance. The original idea which I think should be stressed and applied was unemployment insurance benefits for those people who through no fault of their own are out of work and available for work. The concept embodied in this resolution is a departure from that. As I said, some of the regulations under the act are in themselves a departure from the original intention of the legislation.
If we examine the regulations carefully I believe we will find that people who were drawing unemployment insurance benefits and are committed to hospitals or mental institutions probably through no fault of their own are still able to draw benefits and of course they are not available for work during that period of time.
The act is primarily designed to provide benefits to those who for reasons beyond their control have become unemployed but who are available to accept employment. Appealing as may be the subject matter of this resolution I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. member for Megantic that the unemployment insurance fund should be used for social welfare measures of this nature. I believe that financial assistance should be made available to widows where proved necessary in order to assist them to avail themselves of opportunities for adequate training to allow them to accept work in many of the fields where work of a certain nature is available.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir), many widows in Canada today are accepting employment in business establishments and stores. Some who were previously registered nurses are again taking up this vocation. Some are accepting employment in secretarial work and many others as teachers. In some cases I have found that they are very anxious to get into their line of work as quickly as possible.


Although I do not believe the unemployment insurance fund should be used for social welfare I reiterate that some assistance should be available to widows to allow them to take special training so they may avail themselves of work that may be available.
Over the years a great deal of criticism has been levelled at the present government by the opposition in regard to the present state of the unemployment insurance fund. I have definite opinions about the contribution made to the depletion of the fund by measures such as the one we are discussing at this time. Although I feel that the amount in the fund should at no time be the determining factor as to whether widows should be entitled to receive the benefits to which their deceased husbands would have been entitled, I am wondering why a measure of this nature is introduced at this time by an hon. member supporting a party that, when it formed the government and as a result of an economy not of its making, had the fund built up to a lofty figure and still did not consider at that time that it was necessary to bring in a measure such as the one before us for consideration today.
The plight of widows in financial straits today is no different from that of widows during the past 20 years and so I am wondering why this measure is being introduced at this time when all hon. members of this house are vitally concerned with the condition of the fund. I do not believe that the unemployment insurance fund is the means by which parliament should increase the social welfare benefits which must of necessity be increased in Canada and because I feel this is not the avenue we should follow in this respect I cannot support this resolution.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson). I felt that his closing remarks relating to the depletion of the fund were highly appropriate and pertinent in the discussion of this resolution. At the same time, like the hon. member for Churchill, I agree that this resolution contains much merit. The group of people it is designed to assist represent a classification that presently does not come under the fund and certainly consideration should be given to that question in this light. However, as the hon. gentleman pointed out, the idea behind this resolution is more in the field of welfare than in the field of insurance and should therefore be considered from that point of view.
In the past few years the unemployment insurance fund has been extended to assist groups and classifications of unemployed in fields not previously considered, including

fishermen and seasonal workers. This has placed the fund in a state of imbalance which has resulted in moneys being expended that were not accounted for when the original contributions were fixed as between employees, employers and government. As a result, great concern for the present state of the fund is being shown today by employees :hroughout the country.
In the light of these facts it is my opinion that consideration should be given to the set-ing up of a second fund, if that were feasible, in which could be placed such groups as seasonal workers, fishermen, farm labourers and possibly also married men who are seeking re-training in skilled occupations. Possibly this fund could be subsidized by the government, because all of these groups making contributions to it could not maintain it. Also possibly a percentage of the regular unemployment insurance fund could be used to help finance this second fund. However, I do believe that the significant amount that would have to go into it should come necessarily from the general revenue of the country. Everyone appreciates the problems that must befall the widow at the time of her husband's passing. I can think of nothing that is more tragic and no greater responsibility that is placed on a woman in her lifetime than in the losing of her husband.
It has been said that there are other means available to widows in those circumstances. However, we in government, I think better than anyone else, appreciate the red tape that is associated with any welfare payments that are available to the public. Certainly I will agree that in circumstances such as these civil servants make a determined effort to cut the amount of red tape to a minimum but red tape still exists. There are delays as well that make it most difficult, I would think, for a widow who was the wife of an ordinary wage earner, whose income through the years had been used up in providing the necessary essentials of life, leaving nothing available in the way of an estate to his family when he passed away. In these circumstances I would think that a payment such as is proposed in this resolution would be a Godsend to the wife for it would assist her to get over that period when things are most trying and allow her the opportunity to complete the necessary forms to enable her to qualify for other schemes which are available to her.
I cannot imagine how we could consider this as a proper type of measure to fall under unemployment insurance, as it was originally set up to establish protection for workers who through no fault of their own find themselves unemployed. It is a different type of scheme. Possibly the seasonal worker could also be considered to be not strictly within the original confines of the act and maybe the
Unemployment Insurance Act fisherman as well. Along with the fisherman, there is no reason why the agricultural farm labourer should not be in the same position.
All of these things seem to fit into a specific sphere that it was not the intention of the Unemployment Insurance Act originally to cover, but many of them do come under the act at the present time. If we were to place widows under the Unemployment Insurance Act we would just be going further in the direction that we find is causing us a great deal of difficulty today. What we must do is give consideration to a different scheme, something that will look after these most worthwhile categories but will not deplete the present fund beyond the point it has reached already.
Like the hon. member for Churchill, I wonder why the Liberal member did not bring this to the attention of his party and why they did not give consideration to it when they were in power. Certainly they were in power at a time when the fund was at a much higher level than it is at the present time. Undoubtedly it would have been much more feasible to undertake it at that time; that is, if they were considering this type of legislation or this type of individual. The fact is that probably the hon. member realizes that there has never been a government in power in Canada that has had a more humanitarian approach to the ordinary person in this country and more willing to listen and try to do something about the problems confronting the ordinary citizen than this government. Certainly, he was wise to bring this resolution before the house because he is sure, as are the widows of this country, that they will receive from this party and this government every possible consideration that can be given in the light of the existing situation.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: Mr. Speaker, in opening my remarks I feel it only proper to bring to the attention of the house the experience we had in the province of New Brunswick prior to June, 1957. If hon. members had had the privilege of attending political meetings in New Brunswick and had gone to a Liberal meeting they would have heard appeals from Liberal speakers addressed to the voters in this way: Please, do not vote us out of office or you will lose your unemployment insurance benefits; please do not vote us out of office or a Conservative government, when in power, will take away your family allowances and old age security payments. I believe that since then the people of Canada have been made well aware of the fact that this government believes in social security and social justice. Legislation passed during the past two and a half years should be ample proof of that fact.
1774	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act The resolution introduced by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) has a great deal of appeal to me as a member of parliament from one of the Atlantic provinces. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) put on the record the fact that the average weekly wage in British Columbia is as high as $83, while in the province of Prince Edward Island, according to the latest statistics, it is as low as $52. This fact encourages me to speak in favour of the resolution notwithstanding the fact that it was introduced by a member whose party had an opportunity for many years to introduce this type of assistance.
What I notice about the resolution is that perhaps it does not go far enough. I suggest to the mover of the resolution and to the house that the resolution may not be fair and just to all workers in the country. What about the widower? Should it not apply to him if his wife should die while entitled to benefits? What about single workers, male or female? They often leave unpaid debts when they die and many of them support parents who might be in need of assistance at that particular time just as much as a widow with children. What about a widower, whose wife has predeceased him, who dies and leaves infant children? There are also husbands to be considered, disability pensioners whose pensions are going to be increased but are still not entirely adequate or disabled husbands who because of their disabilities are dependent on wives who are gainfully employed.
All hon. members know that the unemployment insurance commission was established approximately 20 years ago. At the present time there are many local offices and about half a dozen regional offices located across the country. One of the large regional offices of the commission is located in the city of Moncton in the province of New Brunswick. This office serves the Atlantic provinces and because of the fact that large payments must necessarily be made to the residents of the so-called have-not provinces, the existence of unemployment insurance in the Atlantic provinces and in the other less fortunate areas of the country has done much to eliminate hardship and suffering. The existing payments from the fund, more than anything else in the form of social justice, have eliminated hardship, suffering and other unfortunate situations.
It is only in recent years that married women have been allowed to receive benefits. At the present time the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) has a study under way to consider the advisability of including farm labour and agricultural workers as contributors to the fund. When and if the scope of the act is enlarged to allow for this type of 

contributor we will then witness, as we do in the case of seasonal benefits, an additional annual drain on the fund.
At the present time the widows of Canada do not have uniform protection. We have heard mention today of the widow's allowance acts which are provincial statutes. In some of the provinces, particularly the prairie provinces, there are generous disability pensions whether the recipient is a widow or otherwise. Some of the provinces, particularly the four in the Atlantic region, have a maximum of $55 a month for disability pensions whether the person is a disabled woman or a former working man. It is near impossible for these provinces to increase these provincial pensions because of the fact that their revenue from taxation is somewhat restricted.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Smith) criticized the resolution because the mover did not include a time limit during which the benefits might be received. At the resolution stage I do not feel it is appropriate or necessary for the mover to include every aspect of his intentions. However, under resolution No. 44 the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) has certainly given the house a great deal of information as to his intentions. It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was not permitted to elaborate in his speech today on the intentions contained in his resolution. However, the principle was placed on the record and at this time I simply want to state that I am opposed to the principle of resolution No. 44 in so far as it would discriminate between residents of the poorer provinces.
Much has been said about the plight of widows. It seems to me that it would be relatively easy and would involve very little expense, if any, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to comply with this resolution. In recent years we have had an increase in old age security. I understand that the fund is almost carrying itself as a result of the amendment of the 2-2-2 formula to a 3-3-3 formula whereby 3 per cent of corporation taxes, 3 per cent of personal income taxes and 3 per cent of excise taxes are made available and allocated to the old age security fund.
By means of a simple regulation or amendment it should be possible to increase by a very small amount and allocate specifically a certain percentage of the contributions paid by the employer and employee in the purchase of unemployment insurance stamps. By doing so many more names might be added to the Martin statistics on unemployment. This could be remedied by putting widows who are not looking for work in a special category.

If the government should decide to implement the resolution, and to separate contributions in so far as widows are concerned, so as and to include these people in a separate category, perhaps at the same time the government should include other recipients in this classification. I suggest students attending technical institutes and vocational schools who can draw benefits although they are not, except by way of a fiction, available for work, and also older citizens in receipt of pensions.
I know a great many Canadian National Railways workers who on reaching age 65 retire on C.N.R. pensions. Because of the fact that they have made contributions to the unemployment insurance fund over the years they are permitted by law, and quite properly so, to draw benefits for a period up to one year. In many cases, however, they do not survive. If this particular type of employee on pension had lived his estate would have been increased in value to the extent of the benefits for one year. If one railway worker can draw benefits for one year while on pension I do not see why it would not be fair in the case of his co-worker who dies that his estate or family should receive similar treatment. I cannot see any difference.
Many workers in Canada have steady work year in and year out. Clerks in stores and office workers find steady work and contribute to the fund while so employed. On the other hand, some seasonal workers only work a minimum of 15 weeks during a one year period, make contributions of less than $1 a week and because of the legislation can draw seasonal benefits for a period of 13 weeks.
This does not appear to be fair in the eyes of the public. As a result, I want to say that I endorse the principle of this resolution and urge the government to implement it. The implementation of this resolution would not add very much to the administrative costs. It would not be necessary for the widows to register every week. They would simply prove that their husbands, had they lived, would have been entitled to benefits, prove the death and draw the amount to which the husband would have been entitled.
While speaking about widows I think it would be proper also for the members of this house to urge the Canadian Labour Congress, boards of trade and other national organizations to encourage amendments to many of the provincial statutes. As I stated earlier, in some provinces the widows are adequately protected by generous payments under widows' allowance legislation or under workmen's compensation. This is not the case in the poorer provinces.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, as a member from the Atlantic area I heartily endorse the
Old Age Assistance
resolution and note that most speakers coming from the poorer provinces have spoken today in favour of it.


Richard Devere Thrasher: Mr. Speaker, we have now spent several hours on this particular resolution. I think we have had an opportunity to discuss it very fully. There are other resolutions on the order paper that are of great merit and importance to the country, and it seems to me that the mood of the house is such that we should be getting on to those other resolutions.
Accordingly I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton West, that this debate be now adjourned.


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


Charles Benjamin Howard: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and debate adjourned.


OLD AGE ASSISTANCE
Hubert Badanai: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of extending old age assistance to unmarried women and widows of 60 years of age.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this would appear to be a day for the humanitarian instincts of hon. members to rise to the surface. I am sure that the spirits of many departed members must be hovering above us and looking benevolently on those who are in favour of the resolutions which were being produced here this afternoon, particularly the one introduced by my good friend the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge). The same spirits I am sure will be looking down with disfavour on those opposing these benevolent proposals.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, prior to the adjournment at six o'clock I had the privilege of moving the following resolution:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of extending old age assistance to unmarried women and widows of 60 years of age.
Apart from unemployment, health and hospital care, the area of social welfare

Old Age Assistance
which receives government attention in Canada today has to do with security for aged persons unable to find even casual employment. Of these, the group which has been overlooked is undoubtedly the unmarried woman and widow of 60 years of age and over. During the years that I served as mayor of Fort William I was frequently approached for assistance by individuals, some of whom were out of work, others were incapacitated in some way and unable to obtain or qualify for employment.
Compared with the present time those were prosperous years, but of all these unfortunate people those who looked the most pathetic and who made the greatest impression in their appeal were the women who had reached their sixtieth birthday and were unmarried or widows. Here was a type of citizen who found it most difficult to obtain work anywhere.
I recall the time in 1949 when our telephone system was converted from a manual operation to a dial system, with the result that upwards of 60 women operators were laid off. While the city, which owned and operated the telephone system, gave each a generous severance allowance in accordance with the number of years they had been employed, the older women soon found themselves out of money with no prospects of finding employment in other jobs. These women were unmarried or widows and several of them came to the city hall seeking relief from our welfare department.
I have had this resolution on the order paper for the last two years and during that time I have received hundreds of letters commending this motion. Many of these communications were of a heart-rending nature.
To better emphasize the need and to illustrate my point I have selected two cases which I will endeavour to present in a very brief form. One case concerned a Mrs. A, we will call her, aged 62 who had five children. Her husband, formerly employed as a boilermaker, died after a lengthy illness, leaving $1,500 in an insurance policy, which money was used up to pay funeral expenses and doctor's bills. Mrs. A has since been unable to find employment anywhere, except for odd times as a dishwasher, second cook and baby sitter. Her children are all married and raising families of their own. The only remaining source of income she can look to in order to live is charity or city welfare relief.
The other case to which I wish to refer concerns an unmarried woman of 59 years of age who had been a store clerk and is now working only part time. She is now living on unemployment insurance. She made the statement that she was bom six years

too late, for if she were 65 she could qualify for old age assistance. For a woman to admit that she would rather be six years older than she actually is can only mean that a fearful future is the compelling reason for such an admission.
One of the saddest sights to look at is a destitute woman whose bloom of youth has departed with the years and where the frailty of the human body has visibly set in. As a consequence she is invariably seized with a spirit of dejection the like of which can only be found in people whose creeping despair reflects the extremes of adversity.
In the statements of Liberal policy adopted by the national Liberal convention held in Ottawa in January, 1958, in the resolution on social security there is a provision for the extension of old age assistance to unmarried women and widows of 60 years of age. The critics of this proposed legislation may point out the cost to the government if the recommendations contained in this resolution were to be enacted; it will certainly cost money, but I dare say that with a close examination of the facts it can be done.
I would propose that the present contributions to the universal old age pension fund of 3 per cent of income, 3 per cent of corporation tax and 3 per cent of sales tax, which was increased from 2 per cent to 3 per cent in 1959, be increased to 3J per cent. This would enable the government to not only provide a pension for unmarried women and widows of 60 years of age, but would leave enough to boost the present pension of $55 a month.
At the same time, a higher contribution would have an anti-inflationary effect, thus keeping the value of the pension more stable, and with the development of the country and rise in national production it can be expected that pensions will be increased again in the future.
If and when the government proposes some changes in the old pension scheme, such as the suggestion made by Professor Robert Clark of the University of British Columbia, who made a deep study of the American scheme which is financed by workers and mangement contributions, it would be logical for the government to add the contributory phase so that pensioners could reap the benefit of their own contributions. The introduction of a contributory plan would make possible a reduction from the age of 70 to 65 for men and for women in general to the age of 60.
In any contributory plan, however, pensions should be made portable so that the worker would be able to bring to the new job the pension benefits saved during his or her earlier employment. This would reduce the

pension costs to the new employer and make him more ready to hire the older man or the older woman. I wish to make it clear that by portable pension I mean that all the contributions made by both the employee and the employer are to be transferred from the former job to the new job.
The prospects for the future of our country are much brighter than they appear on the horizon at the present time, and with faith and good management there should be no depression in the vision of Canadians anywhere. Our country is going to grow and increase in wealth beyond the optimist's wildest dream, and it should be our purpose to make life a little bit easier for those who have made their contribution to the sum total of our national heritage and whose fortunes have not been commensurate with what they gave Canada. To these citizens, a reasonable standard of living should be provided by the nation.
Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Iran, Israel, the Union of South Africa and the United Kingdom; all these countries have set the minimum pensionable age for women at 60, five years lower than the age for men. In countries such as Brazil, the Dominican Republic, France, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, Thailand and Turkey, both men and women retire and receive pensions at 60 years of age. In Russia and Japan men receive pensions at 60 and women receive pensions at 55. I have taken these facts from the International Labour Review of October 1955. In 1956 the United States brought the retirement age for women down from 65 to 62, the retirement age for men remaining at 65 in that country. Here I wish to quote from the same review at page 266:
It is very important for the pensionable age to be adjusted to the security needs of older workers, since the essential purpose of old age pensions is to deal with such needs. .. The two main causes of involuntary loss of income on the part of aging workers are loss of ability to work and loss of ability to find a job even while still capable of working. Employment statistics often indicate that women tend to encounter difficulty in remaining in employment at an earlier age than men. Old age benefits have as a purpose not only tne aiding of disabled and unemployed older workers. They should also enable all aged workers, if they wish to enjoy a period of leisure and rest following a long working life, to do so.
In answer to an inquiry sent out by the commission on the status of women of the United Nations economic and social council, one international group replied that some of its affiliates did consider earlier retirement for women, and I quote:
A fair compensation for the special burdens connected with motherhood and care for the family carried by the majority of women, a burden which is particularly heavy for the great mass of women who live in poor economic circumstances.
Old Age Assistance
Since age of retirement has a direct relationship to age of pension, the same reason could be given for women receiving the old age pension at an earlier age.
How can we justify the retirement of air force officers at various ages between 45 and 50 with pensions up to $6,000 and $7,000 a year at a time when most of these men have an opportunity of resuming a gainful career in other fields, while at the same time denying a miserly pension of $55 per month to destitute women of 60 years? I do not criticize a policy which was designed to guarantee certain changes and advancement for men in the services in time of war. I merely wish to call attention to a situation which should be rectified by bringing about a policy more in keeping with the times.
It could also be argued that it is possible to establish flexible pension provisions between pensionable age and retirement age. The method of applying this formula would be a reduction of pension when the person concerned continues to work.
It has also been said unemployment insurance can take care of persons when they are not of retirement age. My answer is that unemployment insurance can only deal with short term periods. Unemployment insurance is not organized to handle the problem of semipermanent unemployment because of age. Hence, old age pension benefits must be adopted to fill the gap.
It must be realized that the principal factor influencing the age at which men or women need pensions should be the difficulty they meet in finding and retaining employment as they advance in age. There is hardly any need for me to re-emphasize the accepted fact that, with the exception of nurses and domestics, women reaching 60 years are the first casualties in the labour market.
This resolution, however, does not recommend a pension for all women of 60 years of age. It limits the benefit to unmarried women and widows. However, I would certainly have no objection if the government would extend the same benefit to all women of 60 years of age regardless of marital status.
In a summary prepared by the United Nations economic council commission on the status of women the suggestion was made that if the age were lowered with respect to the eligibility of women for pensions professional women would be placed at a disadvantage to the point that an employer might be inclined to discriminate against them and dismiss a woman in preference to a man because she would be entitled to a pension. Another point made was that employers might replace older women workers with younger employees who would work for

Old Age Assistance
less wages even though the older women were quite capable of performing their work.
These and other objections are superficial as can be seen from the action already taken by several nations which I have already mentioned. In spite of arguments to the contrary, 19 nations of the world have lowered to 60 the eligibility age of women with respect to pension benefits and no less than 4 countries in the western world are paying pension benefits to women at age 55, namely Italy, Japan, Panama and Argentina. This by no means exhausts the list.
The humanitarian aspect of this resolution is such as should move not only this government but even a heart of stone. Its implementation would bring hope where there is now dejection, would lift the spirit of a human being from the dark recesses of despair to the heights of light and contentment in the declining years of a woman's life.
In conclusion, I express the hope that every hon. member of this house irrespective of where he sits will want to be counted as favouring this resolution not because of any political consideration but because he supports the view that beneath the exterior of a poor, destitute woman beats a heart as noble as any of those whose fortunes enable them to bedeck themselves with the finery which wealth can provide.
(Translation):


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank and congratulate the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Ba-danai) who amazed us with his pathos and in particular with the interest he showed for a category of citizens who seem to deserve official attention.
May I also thank him for having touched lightly-without political passion, at the beginning of his remarks-on the fact that Canada looks prosperous to him. We, on this side of the house, have never doubted it, and I could not help wishing that his party's horsemen of the Apocalypse were there on the front benches to listen carefully to his remarks.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: We will be in office a year from now.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, our friends in the opposition are putting forward a measure which, I think, has some merit. As a representative of the working class, of a constituency which has experienced misery, even during the most prosperous war years, when our Liberal friends were in office-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: You should try to find better arguments than those.


Georges-J. Valade: -I may say that I agree with the resolution now being considered. However, I wish the resolution went further and were considered without any political consideration.
I carefully followed this afternoon the remarks made about resolution No. 3, which has fairly close connection with that of the hon. member for Fort William.
At that moment I heard my good friend, the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets)-who delights in applying a few nicknames to me-make some remarks of a political nature. Well, Mr. Speaker, I will try to discuss the problem objectively and submit to the house the social considerations I intend to put forward.
However, may I revert to the argument which the hon. member for Fort William most eloquently put forward when, in his opening remarks, he mentioned the case of the 60 year old Mrs. A who was utterly destitute.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I myself have in mind an identical case which was brought to my attention, but the person concerned was only 59 years old. Consequently, I wonder why the hon. member for Fort William put in that restriction in his resolution, and set a 60 year limit instead of extending it further.
Mr. Speaker, in this resolution I do not like the words "old age assistance". I would have preferred a more eloquent expression to recognize, as stated by the sponsor of this resolution, the merits and commendable contributions made to our country by those elderly people. I feel that to consider as old someone who is 60 is not in keeping with the respect I have for that category of people. As I say, I would have preferred a much more eloquent description.
Mr. Speaker, if the principle is basically excellent, it should be fully studied, for we would not like to see inadequate proposals or resolutions introduced in this house only for the sake of discussion, which could be used as a political stepping-stone and which would not have the immediate result of bringing any relief to the people concerned.
This seems to be somewhat characteristic of any legislation put forward by our friends opposite. For instance, when the unemployment insurance act was passed, great claims were made about the social and politico-social import of that legislation.

But it required the coming into power of a Conservative government, conscious of its responsibilities, to correct and amend that legislation, and adapt it to the requirements of our working class, by extending the benefits and making them more readily available to those who needed them.
The same, Mr. Speaker, could be said about the old age assistance act. There again, as stated by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) we have a measure, a piece of social legislation introduced by the Liberal party, but which, once again, had to be amended and improved by the Conservative party so as to make it beneficial for the people of Canada.
You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, what meager pittance our senior citizens were receiving under the Liberal regime.
We amended that legislation and increased the old age pension from $40 to $55.


H.-Pit Lessard: 


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Amend yourselves, amend yourselves.


Georges-J. Valade: I think my hon. friends are mistaken.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: No, it was $46.


Georges-J. Valade: The pension was raised from $40 to $46, and we increased it to $55. That is a plain fact which our friends do not like to hear, but I believe it is my duty to point to the act itself. I would ask our friends to look up the statutes and see for themselves, as I did, the substantial improvements which the Conservative party had to introduce in their so-called social legislation.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: One should be fair.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, in order to protect the public and certain classes of people, a legislation must be efficient and adequate. The needs of such classes must be carefully considered. There should be no groping in the dark when dealing with such significant legislation as this.
Since I have been sitting in this house, 1 heard on many occasions, little else but criticism from the opposition with regard to the enormous deficits registered each year by the Conservative government. As for the Liberals they boasted of having left the country with a surplus of nearly $900,000,000.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: It is true, it is true.


Georges-J. Valade: And all that time all our senior citizens were getting was a pension of $40 a month.


H.-Pit Lessard: Sorry, $46.
Old Age Assistance


Georges-J. Valade: Forty dollars. The pension had started at $40. This proves, therefore, that when the Liberal party was in power, and the coffers were full, there was no thought at the time of the existence in our society of destitute classes needing special attention. It is then that the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) should have introduced this legislation.


An hon. Member:: Quite true.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, with surplusses in their coffers, the Liberals preferred to finance the pipe-line.
As soon as the Conservative party came to power, it gave thought to improving social legislation and helping destitute Canadians. My hon. friend from Fort William should not forget that all provinces have some form of public and social assistance legislation. We too, in the province of Quebec, have a similar law. I refer to statutes 59-60, 8-9 Elizabeth II, chapter 73 and if you will allow me, I shall quote from section 22, as amended in March 1960:
May be admitted to public assistance institutions, at the expense of the government, municipalities or public assistance institutions, needy persons who provide the authorities of the public assistance institution where they are admitted with evidence of their state of destitution, in accordance with the provisions of this act, as well as evidence of the incapacity of persons responsible for providing them with food or care.
There are other paragraphs dealing also with assistance given by municipalities to destitute persons, through the medium of the province. The federal government already contributes at the rate of 50 per cent.
From the bottom of my heart, I sympathize enormously with the intention which prompted the hon. member for Fort William to introduce this resolution. However, I doubt that this resolution has been given adequate and detailed consideration.
I should like to see the day, and I am sure the Conservative party will do everything in its power to achieve that end, when parliament introduces legislation to eliminate all human misery in Canada. I wonder why the hon. member for Fort William put a 60 year limit on the proposal he submitted to the house. Misery knows no age, regardless of matrimonial status, condition or sex.
I should have liked a motion introduced that would take into account not the age of certain people but their circumstances.

Old Age Assistance
I appreciate that such a measure would perhaps appeal to certain newspapermen, sympathetic to a cause foredoomed to failure, the cause of the Liberal party.
I realize that in order to make up for the ill-starred exhibition staged by the Liberals in Ottawa early in January-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The hon. member can hardly talk of something he does not know, since he was not there.


Georges-J. Valade: I can understand that the Liberals, in their attempt to deceive the electorate, proposed resolutions that were inadequate and discriminatory to other categories of needy people. Nevertheless, this legislation is not consistent with social justice because, while providing for the needs of some people, it overlooks the needs of others.
Mr. Speaker, I would be in favour of social legislation which would recognize the need for assistance of all categories of the needy, regardless of age or of marital status. The proposal being submitted today is obviously only fragmentary, it is makeshift legislation and offers no real solution.
The Conservative party has never favoured a group of individuals at the expense of some other group, as Mr. C. D. Howe used to do.
The Conservative party has gone the Liberals one better in the field of social legislation, and this puts the Liberals in an uneasy situation before the voters.
Human misery is not a problem that comes solely under federal jurisdiction. It is a problem that every class of our society must consider. There are social groups, welfare organizations; there are also municipal and provincial governments, which also have their responsibilities as far as social legislation and public assistance are concerned. Municipalities and provinces must also submit their problems in that field.
The Conservative party will adopt social assistance programs that will help all the destitutes; all classes of the needy will benefit from those programs. Then, when I go back with pride and dignity to the electors of my riding, I will be able to tell them that when I took part in the debate on their miseries, I did not do so in order to make political hay and to make a few newspaper headlines.
Mr. Speaker, those people know that, when the time comes to accept, adopt or propose legislation to eliminate human misery, I will be among those who cast an affirmative vote.


Rodolphe Leduc: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to offer my sincere congratulations to the member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) for the resolution he submitted to the house and which reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of extending old age assistance to unmarried women and widows of 60 years of age.
I agree with the hon. member that if there is a group deserving of our consideration, it is indeed that of widows and single women.
During my political career, and more particularly in recent years, I have met many widows and single women who asked me: "Why do you not introduce legislation that would allow us to get our pension at the age of 60?" Then as now those women were asking for a pension at 60. Why? Because in most cases, they cannot find employment and in many cases widows, for instance, who have raised large families, are unable to do the work they are offered, I feel that society must assist those needy persons by means of a pension.
Besides, the Liberal party has always been concerned with the welfare of the needy. The social security legislation now on the statute books shows clearly that the Liberal party has always sought to help people most in need of assistance.
Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign of 1958, on February 10, 1958, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) made a speech entitled "Social Security". About old age assistance, he had this to say:
Unmarried women and widows will be able to get old age assistance benefits at the age of 60 instead of 65.
Well, that suggestion, with many others in the Liberal platform, was laid before the electors, but it was not approved by the majority.
However, to show that the Liberal party has its heart set on giving such pensions to needy persons at age 60, let me quote clause 25 of the Liberal party platform during the provincial election held in the province of Quebec last June:
Widows and unmarried women will be eligible, starting at age 60, for the pension now being paid to persons aged 65 to 70.
I am happy to see, Mr. Speaker, that an amount of $5,000,000 has been included in the estimates of the Liberal government of Jean Lesage for 1961-62.

The Liberal party in Quebec has found an expression which should certainly please my friend, the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) who does not like the expression "old age pension". Here we speak of "allowances for widows and spinsters aged 60 to 65."
Mr. Speaker, I am not pleading here for the widows and the unmarried women in my province-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I-


Rodolphe Leduc: -because in a few months hence, they will be receiving the pension provided for such persons aged 60 to 65.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?


Rodolphe Leduc: -I am rather speaking on behalf of all women, all the widows and unmarried women in the other provinces who do not and may not for a few years perhaps, enjoy the benefits of such a social welfare measure as the one which the Quebec government will be putting into effect during this session or the next.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?


Rodolphe Leduc: I should like to see the federal government pass a bill under which all widows and unmarried women in need would receive a pension equal to the one which is now provided for persons aged 65 to 70.
Mr. Speaker, the government should, in my opinion, give serious consideration to this resolution and bring forward, during the present session, a bill providing help for all widows and unmarried women in Canada.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member for Gatineau?


Azellus Denis: Later.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I put a question to the hon. member for Gatineau?


Rodolphe Leduc: Yes.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Could he tell me whether the Quebec government is going to levy a special tax as in the case of hospital insurance.


Azellus Denis: Ask Mr. Barrette.


Rodolphe Leduc: Not being the minister of
finance of the province of Quebec, I cannot answer that question.


Azellus Denis: People will be required to buy shares of the natural gas corporation.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to
Old Age Assistance
listen to the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) and to the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc) who has commended the legislation scheduled to be introduced in the Quebec legislature.
I was right in putting that question to him earlier, because people in Quebec are a bit uneasy, and are wondering if there will not be a special tax levied to finance that increase in pensions, for they have already had their fingers burned. In fact, a provincial tax is being levied now to provide for hospital insurance. That is why I am putting that question, because people in Quebec are wary of their present government.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member seems to have got into another jurisdiction. We are debating matters within federal jurisdiction.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I carefully read the resolution introduced by the hon. mem-per for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) and I also listened very closely to his speech. In principle, his resolution is excellent, but in actual fact, one always wonders how to finance such a plan, where to find the money required, because, after all, the taxpayer always has to pay, and it is always the people of Canada who have to finance the social measures introduced in this house to improve their condition.
I have a suggestion to make, Mr. Speaker. It is common knowledge that I have put on the order paper a bill for the purpose of establishing a national lottery, the receipts of which are intended to raise family allowances, with rates increasing in proportion to the number of children, and also to raise pensions.
Would it not be advisable that the Canadian government consider the possibility of establishing a national lottery? I should like to point out also that certain newspapers mentioned this lately. I am thinking in particular of La Presse which ran several articles on the matter, and is now conducting a survey in this regard. Moreover, I must remind you that this project has the support of labour unions.
I am not against a provincial lottery, of course, provided there would be one in all provinces. Mr. St. Laurent himself objected

Old Age Assistance
to a lottery in only one province. Why? Because, supposing there were a lottery in Ontario only, and not in the other provinces, money from Quebec and other provinces would pour into Ontario to the prejudice of the other provinces.
I wonder whether it would not be important that the Canadian government consider the advisability of setting up a federal lottery, whose receipts would serve to improve our pension plan, and to raise pensions.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is now dealing with a federal-provincial lottery. I should like to call your attention to the fact that a bill, namely Bill C-18, for the purpose of establishing a Canadian lottery is standing in his name on the order paper. In my opinion, the hon. member has no right to anticipate, and should confine his remarks to the resolution now under discussion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Of course, the hon. member may not discuss at length the establishment of a lottery, national or otherwise. Nevertheless, I believe it is proper to suggest that the purpose of the resolution could be financed through a lottery. I feel however that he has said enough on this matter and I would ask him now to suggest other means of financing, if he has any other to suggest.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to point out certain methods of financing. I might have been out of order at the beginning, but one should not be content to advocate a social measure. Also to be considered is the method of financing. That is why I made that suggestion to the house. I hope it will be possible to consider that plan in a not too distant future.
Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to call the attention of the house to the bill standing in my name on the order paper.


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to seize this opportunity to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for having sponsored such a resolution. I am not so good at making a speech and I have no intention of wasting the time of the house by delivering a long one. However these measures are such commendable ones that I would not want to miss this opportunity of congratulating those who have decided at last to take notice of the ills of the people and to present resolutions such as the No. 3 resolution put forward this afternoon

by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) and the one which is now before the house and which calls for the extension of old age assistance to unmarried women and widows of 60 years of age. Such measures appeal to me.
Speaking as a physician, I may say that in the course of forty years of general practice, I have been witness time and again to the destitution and the extreme poverty not only of unmarried women and widows of 60 years of age but also of widows as young as 40, 35 and often 30.
I have therefore congratulations to extend to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) and also to the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc) who seconded the motion. However, I have to blame them for one thing and that is for not going far enough.
I agree that we must help those in need. We are here for that. We are here to make laws for the people, to extend to them a helping hand in order not to be beaten in two or three years time by our opponents for having failed to care for the ills and the problems of the people, and for having withdrawn from them.
We want to live up to the excellent reputation which is ours. If we were elected in 1958 by such a great majority, it is because our program took into account the ills of the people. That is the reason why we are members of a government such as this one.
As a physician who sympathizes with the ills of the people, I am happy to say to my hon. friends in the opposition that I am in favour of welfare measures, but I must add: "You do not go far enough. Be more generous." I would suggest, even to the sponsor of the motion to present it again one day and to make it as generous as I would like to see it. In the meantime, I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) to go on with the assistance he is already giving, pending this more generous measure that will come from our hon. friends in the opposition. I would ask him to continue to the people the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act amended in 1957, while we are waiting for this more generous legislation that will perhaps be proposed by our hon. friends from the opposition.
I therefore urge them to be generous and bring relief to those aged 60, 40 and 30 years, and more particularly to the widows who, being left without means, with a family to

support, and therefore being unable to work outside, need a generous piece of legislation such as only this government has been able to enact since taking over.
In fact, did this government not, as soon as it took office, raise the old age security pension from $46 to $55 a month, until it is hiked to $75 at an early date. I suggest that this government take this step and at the next general election I shall be happy to ask my government to double, if necessary, for people who deserve it, the rate of old age security pensions and widows' pensions, particularly for those who are suffering hardship because of their age and family obligations, and who are unable to earn a living.
The people will certainly realize and note that while we have no monopoly on social welfare, because politics should not be mixed with welfare, we do have, however, a monopoly on common sense, balance and private initiative. The people will also realize that a government should legislate and govern with the money from the people, with people's money, something we should always keep in mind. We might also recall at this time that the Leader of the Opposition recently blamed us for spending those $500 million of savings put aside by the Liberals when the people had just upbraided the latter for not looking after them. Today he asks us to lead the country into debt through deficits and to help the people.
Well, with all this good advice, you may be assured that I, for one, on behalf of my constituency of Quebec West, and as a medical doctor, have spent all my life trying to relieve human suffering, shall commend my government and urge its members to keep up its splendid policies, its good work for the protection of the poor, the sick, the afflicted, the suffering and the needy.
(Text):


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) for introducing this resolution. It is a fact that unmarried women and widows of 60 years of age and over constitute a class of persons who are very vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the economic facts of life.
It is difficult to find employment at that age and they must often be faced with difficult problems, problems which none of the existing federal social legislation can help solve. It seems to me this is an omission which ought to be rectified. Our nation has
Old Age Assistance
an enviable record in social and welfare legislation, but time brings changes, shows up weaknesses and makes evident where additional legislation can be brought in to round-out the social benefits and the welfare system which we have.
The resolution which is now before the house seems to me to be one of these things, the result of recognition of a need. It asks the government to consider the advisability of extending old age assistance to unmarried women and widows of 60 years of age and over. This resolution seems to me to be a worthy one and I hope it will be given serious and sympathetic consideration by the government.
In closing these brief remarks I would like to make one observation. I thought this resolution was as non-political as a resolution could be, but the ensuing debate has shown how wrong I was. For instance, I learned with a great deal of interest and dismay from the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) that the social legislation of the previous Liberal administration was nothing but wicked political devices, if I understood him correctly, which were transformed by some strange alchemy of Toryism into welfare measures.
I doubt whether the record of history will agree with this interpretation.


George Clark Fairfield: Mr. Speaker, I am sure everyone must be very sympathetic to a resolution such as this put forward by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai). However, I think there are many questions that should be asked. The hon. member has brushed some of the questions aside as being not fundamental and of no value in any argument. For instance, there is the question that all widows with or without jobs, all unmarried women with or without jobs should have a pension at the age of 60. He brought up this matter of professional women practically forced into retirement at the age of 60, and the employed women whose employers desire younger ladies and may have a very good excuse to put the older women out of work. These are questions that, despite his quick desire to brush them aside as having no meaning at all, should be answered; and I have not as yet heard any answer from the opposition benches.
The hon. member states that the Liberal convention in 1958 first passed this resolution. I am quite sure that if our friends in the opposition thought it would gain them a few more votes they would lower the age to 50 and raise the so-called baby bonus to

Old Age Assistance
40. Therefore we would have a gap of ten years for the New Party to fill up. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) stated that this was being looked after by the new government in Quebec as no other government in Canada is doing. I think possibly he does not know about our Conservative government in Manitoba. In 1959 they passed an act, one of the sections of which reads:
-the government of Manitoba and each of the several municipalities in the province may take such measures as are necessary for the purpose of ensuring that no resident of Manitoba, including an Indian .. . lacks
(a)	such things, goods, and services as are essential to his health and well-being, including food, clothing, shelter, and essential surgical, medical, optical, dental and other remedial treatment, care, and attention: and
(b)	an adequate funeral upon his death.
It goes on to state in this act that they will have a certain means test, of course, and that the social service officers will decide, through the minister of health and welfare, who shall come under the act. They even have an appendix to the act stating what are reasonable amounts for fuel, food, and so on. Saskatchewan has one of these social security acts, and I am sure other provinces have also.
So this is a statement which the hon. member has just drawn from out of the blue without any backing whatsoever. Our people in Manitoba do not particularly need any assistance, whatever the other provinces may need, in so far as unmarried women and widows of the age of 60 are concerned.
In the field of federal social security we have also passed an amendment to the unemployment relief and assistance act and it shows in the annual report for 1959 that after this amendment was passed we had almost a doubling of the amount of unemployment assistance from December of 1958 to January of 1959. I am sure that a great many of these people were 65 years of age. I will admit that. But there are a great many people who have come under this act and who have been helped by the federal government.
I wish to remind hon. members of the opposition of the words of their leader who stated something that I think they examine every time they go through a convention. It was put on the record on July 4, 1960, at page 5666. This is what he said, as reported in Hansard:
May I conclude, Mr. Speaker, with one or two very general and very short observations. In recent years the asserted claims of the individual on the state have been matched by his protests against the state's interference in his activities and in his private life, an interference which his own demands have made easier and in some cases inevitable. The state cannot provide services and support for the citizen without acquiring the power

and authority which is necessary and desirable for that purpose. Put it another way; more social security, desirable and even necessary though that is, may often be the means to greater state powers, and the latter persistently press against the freedom and rights of citizens who are to benefit from these powers.
It is true, that the citizens who receive this social security are helped, as indeed many of them should be helped, but those citizens who have to pay for it should have some representation in this House of Commons and should have someone to speak for them. I think the words of their leader should be taken well to heart by members of the opposition, namely that if you ask for social security you must ask for control. If, for example, this resolution was passed, there would in fact be some control over the employment of women who had reached the age of 60. We know that many of these women are deserving. Notwithstanding that, many are covered at the present time by provincial statutes and many, too, are quite capable of carrying on their work past the age of 60. They have many years of good work still within their power. So although I say that I am in favour of a resolution which specifies help where there is need, I certainly am not in favour of this resolution as it is presently worded.


Murdo William Martin: I see that a noticeable improvement has been made during my absence from the house this afternoon. We now have before us another resolution, put forward by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) who is also a member of the Liberal party, and I must say it is a marked improvement on the resolution we had before us earlier today. This resolution is one which we can support fully, because unlike the wonderful province of Manitoba, unlike the wonderful situation which was expounded by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Fairfield), there are many women affected by this resolution and who need this type of help in the province of Ontario and, I am sure, in many other provinces. I am even inclined to believe that if the hon. member looks hard enough he may find a few in that category in the province of Manitoba as well.
This resolution does point to a serious problem in our society, and that is the situation faced by unmarried women or widows at the age of 60 and over. While the employment situation is as it is in this country at the present time the people in this category certainly find themselves in an unenviable position. This might not be so bad if there were full employment and if jobs were available for everyone who wanted to work. Unfortunately, that is not the situation today,

and I am afraid there have been few occasions in the history of this country when such a situation existed. Consequently women who reach the age of 60 find themselves in a very disadvantageous position on the labour market. However, I should like to make it clear that we support this measure only as a stopgap measure and not as a real answer to the situation. In fact, this is just another patch on the leaky tire of our social legislation in this country.
I believe the solution to this problem is one which we have suggested many times in this house, namely the implementation of a portable pension plan with some kind of joint survivorship clause so that if a woman should reach the pensionable age while single the pension for which she had worked all her life could be granted to her. If, on the other hand, the woman concerned was left a widow, her husband having worked over the years, then through this portable pension plan capable of being carried from job to job, and through the joint survivorship clause in the plan, her financial difficulties would be overcome and there would be no need to add another patch to the worn-out old tire of our social legislation, I think the fact that we have so many of these resolutions, each dealing with a certain weakness, a certain fault in our present social legislation, only bears out our contention that it is time we really tackled this job and came up with a satisfactory over-all solution to it.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, today is a memorable date for the official opposition, two of their resolutions are actually being discussed at one sitting, on a Monday, which is private members' day. That is indeed a very rare occurrence.
These two resolutions deal with social security benefits. As I say, the fact that both resolutions were submitted by Liberal members certainly creates a precedent.
Mr. Speaker, we are very often accused of bitterly criticizing while not submitting any suggestions nor realistic recommendations to the government.
Well, today and every day, we formally deny these accusations. We have submitted two significant resolutions. If this government were to accept them, I would think that this country's position would become much more hopeful than it is at present.
Before starting to discuss the resolution itself, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out a few remarks made by some hon. members on the government side.
The hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade), told us in his speech, that in 1957 when our
Old Age Assistance
term came to an end, we had a surplus of $900,000,000. Of course, here as on other occasions, the hon. member is mistaken. First of all, we are dealing with the unemployment insurance fund which if I remember correctly, in 1957, amounted to $927,000,000.
That position is understandable. At that time, the unemployment situation was not as serious as today, when it is draining away substantial amounts of money every year. That year, the surplus was $152 million. It was put aside, as it always was in the past. The Liberal government was accumulating moneys that the Conservative government now spends the way we all know.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Mary, like many others, referred quite often to the last Liberal convention. As you know, the convention adopted a resolution to the same effect as this one.
It seems that this Liberal convention which drew so much attention in Canada, has given some concern to our hon. friends of the government. The evidence is that they often refer to it.
The hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Bissonnette), whose experience and sincerity we respect, said he was in favour of this resolution. He even wished it was more generous. May I remind the hon. member that he is a member of a government with the strongest parliamentary majority ever since confederation. During his speech, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) was in his seat. May I ask him why this project is not carried out if he thinks it is so good? Why does he not try to awake his minister who should have expressed his views on this resolution? Why not awake him and have him recognize the merit of this resolution?
I notice that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not in his seat at this moment.
(Text):
I wish to tell the minister that I observe he is keeping a very troubled silence. I think when such a proposal is under discussion the hon. gentleman should let us know where the government stands instead of sitting idly by while this measure is talked out by Conservative members. If the minister evades his responsibility, keeps his silence and does not tell us the position of the government before the expiration of our time at 10 o'clock this evening, we will let the

Old Age Assistance
Canadian people decide in due time what they think of this silence and evasion of responsibility.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, the hon. member for Quebec West also dealt with social security projects. He said that on occasions his party might propose several projects of this kind to the people.
May I point out to him that if the hospital insurance act is now in force in the province of Quebec, while it had been refused by his former provincial leader Mr. Duplessis, it is due to a Liberal premier.
It is appropriate also to reply to hon. Conservative members today who try to pose as advocates of social security, that in this very house, no later than in 1944, their former political leaders opposed the adoption of certain social measures, such as family allowances.


An hon. Member:: That is true.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker there is no doubt that during the last 25 years, considerable progress has been achieved in the struggle against misery and insecurity. Those things which seemed a little bit ridiculous and impossible at that time have been achieved since.
But there is still too much misery and distress around us not to give consideration to extending further the scope of social security.
When we deal with social security, I believe we should set our mind on providing a minimum standard of living to our citizens.
Today, with regard to this resolution concerning 60-year old single women and widows, I suggest-like the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai), whom I congratulate for his action which in fact gives effect to a resolution adopted at the recent Liberal convention-that such protection is needed by that group of citizens.
I am particularly interested in seeing it adopted.
I know that in my own constituency it will bring relief and a greater measure of welfare to a class of citizens who so far have not enjoyed any government protection.
I would be remiss in failing to mention the fact that in the province of Quebec, during the next session-there was something in the newspapers about this legislation-measures will be introduced to provide more help for unmarried women and widows of 60 or more.
I wish at this point to commend and give credit to the premier of the province of Quebec who has so much to do because very

little has been done so far in that province. He tackled his important task splendidly and with great energy.
Mr. Speaker, the principle of this resolution commends itself to the hon. members and I hope the government will tell us before the end of this sitting whether it supports the principle and whether it is prepared to help that class of unmarried women and widows.
I sincerely hope that the minister who was here a few moments ago will break his silence and let us know where he stands.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak tonight. But listening to the Liberal members, one might be led to believe that they alone are responsible for whatever good there is in the field of protection, etc.-


Azellus Denis: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Liberal members are a bit fidgety. When they calm down, perhaps they will be able to listen more placidly to what we have to tell them.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the present Conservative government has nothing to learn, in the field of social security, from the Liberals who ran the country for years and were finally driven out of office on account of their silence in the house-there are still a few of them left-and on account of their lack of action.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to take the 1957 campaign, the Liberals claimed it was impossible to increase the level of old age security pensions because it would jeopardize the economy of this country and because it would be dangerous to pass such a measure. Today, when there is nothing they can do, they want us to believe that if they returned to power, old age security pensions, pensions for needy mothers and all kinds of pensions would be doubled and even tripled if necessary.
But hon. members opposite need not get excited, whenever old age pensions and pensions for the blind and widows are raised, they will again be raised by a Conservative government.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to take a few minutes of the time of this house to examine certain facts. In 1956-57, under a Liberal government, the country paid out

$379 million in old age security pensions. No doubt you know that under the present Conservative government, we pay out to older people the amount of $575 million a year. I therefore ask Liberal members who, when they were in power, did nothing but make long-winded speeches, to explain the increase granted under a Conservative government. As it would take them a little too long to find the answer to this mathematical problem, I shall tell them that we raised old age pensions by as much as 51 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, we Conservatives do not say: We shall do this or that. On the contrary, we raised the level of pensions and when circumstances allow, we shall raise them again; the Conservative government will be the first to propose such a move. Again I say we have no lesson to take from people who did nothing for 21 years and just let things go their merry way. We are moving forward and shall continue in that direction.
Referring to social security payments, we find that our Liberal friends have paid out $1.3 billion in the year 1956-57-


William Moore Benidickson: I beg your pardon?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: $1.3 billion. Under a Conservative government, in 1959-60, $2 billion were paid out.
It is easy for the Liberals today to promise something, when they know in advance that they will not have to fulfil their promises.
You, Liberals, could very well promise the moon, and that would not make things any more difficult for you, since you will not be required to fulfil your promises. Just go ahead, take the floor one after the other and try to make yourselves a little political capital.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member explain the difference between one million and one billion?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I recall that a while ago, during a certain trial, a certain gentleman was very much confused between millions and billions. So I would not like to follow the example of that gentleman, and I will limit myself to my own speech, without having anything whispered to me by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska. Besides, I think it would be to his own interest to learn the difference between one billion and one million, for he could then reply himself to that question.
90205-6-113
Old Age Assistance
Mr. Speaker, were I sure not be called to order, I would recall that it was under a Conservative government that taxes were cut. That is our way of showing how we keep close to the people.
That is, Mr. Speaker, a fact that everyone knows. The Liberals themselves have recognized it, because they explained their defeat both in 1957 and in 1958, by saying they had stood too far away from the people. They are still very much aloof from the people, and as time goes, they will stand more and more aloof, while we are going to propose constructive measures which will be to the people's benefit.
Mr. Speaker, as I was listening a moment ago to the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc), I thought for a while that he was going to propose to the house that 55 year-old people be granted family allowances and that those same persons also get the old age security pension. If he had carried on in that direction, I think he would have said so.
His remarks reminded me of an editorial published in Le Devoir, entitled: "Once a drunkard, always a drunkard".
Such an attitude very well shows that while listening to Liberals' speeches, we should always bear in mind that article of Le Devoir: "Once a drunkard, always a drunkard". This leads us to think, to ponder those words of our Liberal friends, and to remember that we must take them, as is often said, if my memory serves me right, "with a grain of salt".
Well, hon. members of the opposition, just go on dreaming; that suits you very well. As for us, our deeds speak for themselves.
(Text):


William Moore Benidickson: Will the hon. member for whom I have great regard permit a question? (Translation):
I regret that my French is not too good- (Text):
My question is, will the hon. member relate the increase of 33J per cent in the contributions to old age security payments and increases up to 55 per cent in payments by employees under the unemployment insurance fund to the remarks he has just made.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: In my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I did not make any reference to old age security but to old age pensions.


William Moore Benidickson: In English, the old age security fund is the only fund that is entirely

Old Age Assistance
within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Is it not a fact that the present government has increased the contributions of those who might benefit by up to 33J per cent in the case of old age security and up to 55 per cent in the case of contributors to the unemployment insurance fund?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: These two things are different, Mr. Speaker. I do not think we live in a world where we can hope to have everything for nothing. We have to pay somehow. This is what is happening in the province of Quebec right now.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I did not have the misfortune of hearing the remarks of the distinguished member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade), but I was unfortunate enough to hear the speech made by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard).
As usual, the hon. member accused others of being nervous but, as you may have noticed yourself, Mr. Speaker, he was not exactly calm himself. He was so flustered, that I believe he made a slight departure from the truth when bringing forward a great many arguments to prove that social legislation had been introduced by the Conservative party. Needless to recall, Mr. Speaker, that all social security legislation passed in this country was enacted under Liberal administration. Family allowances, for instance, were introduced by a Liberal government, and that in spite of every objection raised by our friends opposite, in spite of the objections of their party leader, Colonel Drew, who said that family allowances were a baby bonus for the province of Quebec.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member is straying from the resolution.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I also forgot to tell you that I had the misfortune of hearing the speech of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). He preceded the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Bissonnette), I think. I noticed that those two hon. members were in every way like their ministers, which is to say that they contradicted each other within a period of two minutes. One of them said that it was difficult to pass that resolution, for where would we find the money, how were we to finance that new social legislation? And, immediately afterwards, the other hon. member, belonging to the same party, told us: "I am in favour of the legislation, but you are not going far enough, you are not generous enough", at least, if I correctly understood the hon. members, therefore, within two minutes, those two hon. members contradicted each other,

just like their ministers. As a matter of fact, the press is full of their contradictory statements.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that the ministers contradicted each other. Could he prove his statement by quoting those contradictions?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. When the hon. member for Charlevoix rose, I thought he wanted to tell the house that the remarks made by the hon. member for St. Denis were not related to this resolution. Therefore I would ask the hon. member not to answer that question but to come back to the subject matter of this debate.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, then you agree with me that the hon. member's question was not in order; but so was the answer I was about to give.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member brought about that question by straying from the subject matter of the debate.


Azellus Denis: Unfortunately, I listened carefully when the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot spoke. He said that old age pensions had been increased by 50 per cent. We all know that these pensions were raised from $46 to $55. He claims that $9 represents a 50 per cent increase. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) was right when he asked the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe what school he attended and if he knew how to count.
The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm and the hon. member for Quebec West are three government members and from what they say it would be the responsibility of the opposition to pass legislation. The first and second members tell us that it will cost too much and the third one takes us to task saying that it is not sufficient. It is not surprising that old age pensions should have doubled, Mr. Speaker. To live under a Conservative administration makes us grow old. There are now many more older people than there were before 1956.


An hon- Member:: There are not only older people, there are those who are off their head.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member did not address himself to the resolution from the beginning of his remarks. He criticized the hon. member for Charlevoix and the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe. He addressed himself to his supporters. I submit that he should tell us what he thinks about the resolution before us.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, it is the only way for the hon. member to get a bit of personal publicity. Perhaps it is not the correct way, but it is his only way.
I refer to the resolution and to pensions such as they are. At present, they are granted at the age of 65 in case of need and at 70 to everyone. Under this resolution, it is intended to add widows and unmarried women 60 years old.
I can understand why that resolution is not to their liking, because since a Liberal government was elected in Quebec, the same resolution has become law-at least it will become so in a few weeks-in the beautiful province of Quebec. Yet, their friends were in power for 14 years and did nothing in that connection.
When the hon. member for Quebec West talks about all the hardships he saw as a doctor, I know he is telling the truth; I believe he is telling the truth. I know he sees hardships everywhere. He knows that hardships exist especially in large families. That is why he wanted the resolution to be more generous and not only limited to widows of 60 years, but to those of 40, 35 and even 30 years. But the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is against that, because he does not know where the money will come from.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member for St. Denis claims that I said things in this house which I never said.


Azellus Denis: I had told you so, Mr. Speaker, he is exactly like the members of the cabinet. He denies today what he said yesterday. Every time a minister makes a statement in the house or outside the house, newspapermen always seem to distort their words, and they take the floor to say they never said such a thing, that they have been misinterpreted, that statements are ascribed to them which they never made.
I have never seen such unlucky ministers. Either they talk through their hats, or newspapermen are not what they used to be.


An hon. Member:: You are seeing yourself in a mirror.


Azellus Denis: Which means that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and the hon. member for Quebec West, before making any statement, rather than contradicting themselves, should at least consult each other before hand. As regards the ministers, they have a cabinet where they all meet; they could memorize their statements to avoid 90205-6-113i
Old Age Assistance
mistakes. As for the others, I excuse them somewhat, because they are not sitting on the same side of the house; they have a different outlook and do not go around with the same friends. Just the same, they have good friends on both sides. So, before taking the floor on any resolution, I think that members of the same party should agree to say the same thing. It is true that in the past few years, ministers have not been too consistent with one another in that connection. When some of them say yes, the others say no. Besides, I can tell from the answer given by the hon. member for La Malbaie.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am the member for Charlevoix and not the member for La Malbaie as stated by my hon. friend opposite.


An hon. Member:: He is so seldom in the house that he does not know.


Azellus Denis: Excuse me, and I hope that the population of La Malbaie will not be offended by the interjection of the hon. member for Charlevoix. In fact, I wonder whether I would not get more votes than he would in that riding.


Martial Asselin: Just come and see.


Azellus Denis: At all events, I would be pleased to go there unless you decide first to quit politics.


Martial Asselin: Oh, no.


Azellus Denis: So, I heartily support this resolution and, as the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) did, I ask the house to endorse it.
(Text):


Jay Waldo Monteith: You do not agree with the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Bissonnette) though.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: I would like to ask the hon. minister whether he has done all he could to help the people who are so much in need of help. I believe he did what he could but, unfortunately, like the others, he is a member of a bad government and he will not have time to pass this resolution because it is the next Liberal government which will do so.
When the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) said that we were far from the people, I wonder whether he recalled the election in Labelle and the results of the byelections in Russell and Niagara.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, for the last few minutes, the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) has been dealing with anything but the resolution before the house.

Old Age Assistance


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, look who is inquiring about the resolution. He knows much more about it than I do. He dealt with it a few minutes ago.
I will however tell him that it is on the order paper for Monday February 6, 1961, page 4. Does the hon. member wish me to read it?


Georges-J. Valade: You should read it.


Azellus Denis: Yes, I should perhaps read it to him, but I think he is acquainted with it. He is such a well informed person that he knows the Liberal party is preparing to take similar action in the province of Quebec and that does not suit him.
Let me say in closing-
(Text):


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I gather that the Liberal party in Quebec is following the lead of the hon. member for Quebec West.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: I am glad that with our remarks, Mr. Speaker, we succeeded in making the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) rise. It is probably his only contribution to the house. Well, since his department is concerned, I wonder if he knows what it is for a 60-year old widow to be penniless; I wonder if he knows what it is for a single woman to be without money and unable to earn a living, if he realizes the difficulty she might have? If he does not know, he should contact his colleague for Quebec West who is a doctor and who is much closer to the people than the minister.
I am sure that the Minister of National Health and Welfare after a consultation with the hon. member for Quebec West, would know much more and would welcome heartily the proposal of the hon. member for Fort William.
So I ask the minister to rise and tell us if he is in favour of this resolution; he might also tell us whether he expects to introduce a bill in the near future to do justice to those people in urgent need, to those widows and unmarried women of 60 years of age.


Georges-J. Valade: May I ask a question of the hon. member?


Azellus Denis: Please do.


Georges-J. Valade: Could he tell me what he thinks of this resolution?
(Text):


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I was rising to ask a question of the hon. member for St. Denis who has just concluded his remarks.
[Mr. Valade.l


Henry Frank Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to stop the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River but the Chair recognizes the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Speaker, tonight we have heard from the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc) and the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis). They have talked a good deal about the new proposal in the province of Quebec. Perhaps we should remind them of a few of the facts of life. I wonder if they realize that the federal government is bearing a share of the cost of these benefits about which they have been talking through the medium of the federal unemployment assistance legislation. If I have the opportunity I intend to review some of the legislation that exists in other parts of this country and then hon. members will see that these proposals they have made tonight are ones for which we all have sympathy. We all want to help the people who are in need, and the Conservatives are especially desirous of helping those who are in need.
I looked at this resolution and found that it reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of extending old age assistance to unmarried women and widows of 60 years of age.


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


Henry Frank Jones: Would the hon. member mind? I have only about five minutes in which to speak.


William Moore Benidickson: You have ten minutes, but I think you are going to talk this resolution out.


Henry Frank Jones: As I have pointed out, the resolution makes no mention at all of one of the very seriously disabled groups, one that is well known to every person who has ever had anything to do with social welfare problems -I refer to the deserted wives. What about a deserted wife of 60 or 65 years of age? Why does the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) not include her?


William Arnold Peters: Why don't you amend the resolution to cover them?


Henry Frank Jones: I am sure everyone will agree with the real intention of the hon. member

for Fort William, and will agree that he has kindly intentions. I think that all members will agree that the question is whether or not the action suggested would, in fact, improve the situation in any way. There is already in existence a network of programs which meet the objectives toward which this particular proposal is directed. I think that an examination of some of these programs will substantiate this statement. I intend, if I can, to cover each one in the brief time at my disposal.
First of all, I want to say that those who have been very active in social welfare work over the years feel very strongly that the administrative machinery providing social aid should remain as flexible as possible. This flexibility has been provided by the various types of legislation, both provincial and federal, which are already on the books. I am not here to say that the legislation which is already on the books goes far enough. Certainly, improvements can be made. However, when we come to look at the resolution perhaps we will have to take into account some of these other programs.
The programs that are in existence already cover such things as old age assistance, blind allowances, disability allowances and the federal unemployment assistance act. The last of these measures is designed to give assistance to the provinces on these very points referred to in the resolution. This act has been amended since we came into office and I should like to remind my Liberal friends that it is a particularly progressive piece of legislation which helps the provinces and the municipalities carry out this essential work of assistance to those in need, no matter what their age may be, no matter whether they are married or unmarried or whether they are widows. When you are dealing with social problems, surely need is the criterion. We must look after those in need first.


Murdo William Martin: Have you not got a
big enough majority?


William Moore Benidickson: They are using it now.


Henry Frank Jones: The federal government reimburses the provinces for the payment made within the existing provincial framework of assistance. The scale on which the aid is given is determined by the provinces themselves. It is the provinces that determine the amount of aid, how it shall be given and to whom it shall be given.
I should remind hon. members that today Canadians throughout all the ten provinces
Business of the House
benefit from legislation which the Conservative government brought into effect improving the former unemployment assistance act. I should like to turn to some of the assistance programs that exist in the provinces to show what has already been done and what is already available. I should like to point out, very rapidly, that in each province there is now assistance for women of 60 or over who qualify for it on the basis of need.
Before we go any further with this matter of providing aid we will have to discuss the situation with the provinces and get their concurrence. Flexibility has been the demand of the provinces because the provinces have jurisdictional rights over this particular form of aid. The provinces demand that they shall have the right to determine to whom these funds shall go and how much shall go to each person in the various categories. The provinces are the ones that have this right and they do not intend to have their powers usurped by a resolution proposed by the hon. member for Fort William or anybody else.
I should like to mention some of the provisions that exist in the province of Ontario. Women of 60 years of age and over may qualify for general assistance or an incapacitation allowance up to $60 a month under the general welfare assistance act. This assistance is administered by the municipality and rates are in accordance with the scale set by the province. The province reimburses the municipality for 80 per cent of the amount of assistance given. The rate of general assistance for a single person living alone is $48.50 for food, clothing, household sundries, fuel allowance for cooking with electricity and shelter. Extra allowance is made for special diets, fuel or shelter under special circumstances. This is an outline of the Ontario program. The program in Manitoba is slightly different and in Saskatchewan slightly different again. However, I point out that each of the provinces insist that they shall have the right to say how much and to whom these payments shall go.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Moore Benidickson: May I ask the leader on the government side whether the business of the house will be the same for tomorrow as was announced on Friday.


Jay Waldo Monteith: In the absence of the house leader I should like to announce that it will be as stated previously. Tomorrow

Business of the House
we will start with item No. 9 on today's order paper, which is the resolution concerning the Pension Act. It this is concluded we will resume the debate on the budget resolutions. Wednesday we will take budget resolutions and Thursday second reading of the bill to amend the Pension Act.


William Moore Benidickson: Regardless of what happens, the Pension Act will be the first item of business on Thursday if it has passed the resolution stage?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Second reading, yes.


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

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

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation use the services during 1960 ol any of the following journalists: Pierre Berton, John Bird, Charles Templeton, Robert Weaver, Robert Fulford, Gordon Sinclair, Nathan Cohen, Ron Haggart, Mark Gayn, Peter Dernpson, Ed Mahoney, Margaret Aitken, Mavor Moore, Frank Tumpane, Frank Drea, Thomas Richard Henry?
2.	If so, on how many occasions for each, and at what remuneration?
Answer by: Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister
of National Revenue):
I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Twelve of the 16 persons named were engaged during 1960 as participants receiving a fee. The exceptions were Frank Drea and Thomas Richard Henry, who were not used. Miss Margaret Aitken appeared in a political broadcast; Mr. Robert Weaver, a C.B.C. employee, in an interview program. Neither received a fee.
2.	The following are the number of engagements for C.B.C. programs during 1960 of the 12 remaining. Appearances referred to were on the television network, or locally on CBLT Toronto or CBOT Ottawa; or on the trans-Canada radio network, the dominion network, or locally on CBL, or CJBC Toronto or on CBO Ottawa. Length of contribution ranged from one minute to entire programs.
(a)	Engagements for programs where contributor appeared as commentator, as discussion participant in opinion programming, as interview subject, or as speaker in general talks series:
Pierre Berton, 53; John Bird, 7; Nathan Cohen, 3; Peter Dernpson, 16; Robert Fulford, 24; Mark Gayn, 29; Ron Haggart, 5; Ed Mahoney, 22; Mavor Moore, 13; Gordon Sinclair, 2; Charles Templeton, 3; Frank Tumpane, 55.
(b)	Number of appearances as reporter in news or weather program:
John Bird, 2; Robert Fulford, 2; Mark Gayn, 3; Ron Haggart, 1; Gordon Sinclair- weather 143.
(c)	Number of appearances as actor, panelist in light entertainment programs, interviewer, or master of ceremonies:
Pierre Berton, 46; John Bird, 1; Nathan Cohen, 49; Peter Dernpson, 2; Mavor Moore, 37; Gordon Sinclair, 40; Charles Templeton, 47.
It is not considered to be in the public interest to disclose amounts of payments
Questions
to individuals, as it would affect the position of the corporation in a competitive business in negotiating for services.


MILITARY COLLEGES-FRENCH AND ENGLISH SPEAKING CADETS
Mr. Argue: 1.	In each year since the opening of the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean, what proportion of cadets entering the first year have been (a) French speaking; (b) English speaking?
2.	In each year since the opening of the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean, what proportion of cadets graduating from the second year and entering the Royal Military College, Kingston, Ontario, have been (a) French speaking; (b) English speaking?
3.	In each year, what proportion of the cadets mentioned in question 2 and passing successfully into the fourth year at R.M.C. have been (a) French speaking; (b) English speaking?
4.	In each year, what proportion of the cadets mentioned in question 2 and graduating from the Royal Military College on completion of the fourth year have been (a) French speaking; (b) English speaking?
Answer by: Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate
Minister of National Defence):
1.	In each year since College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean opened in September, 1952, the proportion of French speaking and English speaking cadets who entered the preparatory (initial) year was:
French	English
Year	speaking	speaking
% %
1952	
62.7	37.31953	
57.9	42.11954	
55.9	44.11955	
52.6	47.41956	
55.4	44.61957	
48.3	51.71958	
55.6	44.41959	
60.1	39.91960	
50	502.	In each year, the proportion of French speaking and English speaking second year graduates from College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean who entered the third year at the Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston, Ontario, was:French	EnglishYear	speaking	speaking
% %
1955	
46.6	53.41956	
51	491957	
54.1	45.91958	
52.9	47.11959	
45.9	54.11960	
46.6	53.4
N.B.-The first of the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean second year graduates entered the third year at the Royal Military College in 1955.

Questions
3.	In each year, the proportion of French speaking and English speaking cadets mentioned in question 2 who passed successfully into the fourth year at the Royal Military College was:
	French	English
Year	speaking	speaking
	%	%
1956 	
33.3	66.71957 	
47.3	52.71958 	
51.3	48.71959 	
42.8	57.21960 	
41	59
N.B.-The College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean second year graduates who first entered the third year at the Royal Military College in 1955, subsequently entered the fourth year in 1956.
4.	In each year, the proportion of French speaking and English speaking cadets mentioned in question 2 who graduated from the Royal Military College on completion of the fourth year was:
	French	English
Year	speaking	speaking
	%	%
1957	
33.3	66.71958	
47.3	52.71959	
47	531960	
43.7	56.3N.B.-	-The cadets of the	first entry into
College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean in September, 1952, graduated from the fourth year at the Royal Military College in May 1957.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AUTHORITY   ARBITRATION BOARD
Mr. Argue: 1.	Was an arbitration board appointed to inquire into claims made by contractors against the St. Lawrence seaway authority?
2.	If so, by whom was it appointed, on what date, who are its members, what claims have been investigated?
Answer by: Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	The answer is in the negative.
2.	N.A.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AUTHORITY- EXPENDITURES AND INDEBTEDNESS
Mr. Argue: 1.	What is the total amount of money which the St. Lawrence seaway authority has (a) borrowed; (b) paid on accounts, from the beginning of construction work until January 1, 1961?
2.	What is the outstanding indebtedness of the St. Lawrence seaway authority as of January 1, 1961, and to whom is this owed?
Answer by: Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
The current position is-
1.	(a) as of January 1, 1961, $306,800,000, including temporary loans made during 1954/55 of $1,300,000, and repaid in 1955/56.
(b) $304,295,842.10, as of November 30, 1960.
2.	Borrowed, $305,500,000; unpaid interest, $29,075,700; the Minister of Finance.


POST OFFICE CARETAKER, GRIMSBY, ONT.
Mr. Argue: 1.	Has a caretaker recently been appointed by the civil service commission in the post office in Grimsby, Ontario?
2.	If so, who was appointed to fill this position?
3.	Does this appointee have any other employment apart from that of caretaker?
4.	If so, what are these employments?
5.	Were there other applicants for the position who were unemployed?
6.	If so, what are their names and for how long have they been unemployed?
Answer by: Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of Stale):
1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. Harold Andrew Clausen.
3.	4, 5 and 6. Not known to the civil service commission.

Tuesday, February 7, 1961