1962-02-06

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: On this the tenth anniversary of the accession to the throne of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, I extended to Her Majesty, on behalf of the government, the Commons and the people of Canada, warmest congratulations coupled with the hope that the next decade of Her Majesty's reign would be one of peace and prosperity not only among the peoples of the commonwealth but throughout the world.
(Translation):


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: We should like to join with the Prime Minister in extending our congratulations to Her Majesty the Queen on the tenth anniversary of her accession to the throne.
We trust that the future, like the past, will bring us prosperity and peace.
(Text):
I should like to add to what has already been said by the Prime Minister our congratulations and best wishes on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the accession to the throne of Her Majesty the Queen.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: It is my
privilege on behalf of this group at this time to join with the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Laurier in expressing our loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen and in conveying to her on behalf of parliament, in the unanimous sense, our best wishes. We believe that her reign has been successful in most respects in the last decade, and we are certain that in the years ahead she will occupy this prominent position with great dignity and in the interests of all her subjects.



FINANCE


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: For some time, Mr. Speaker, the treasury board has been giving consideration to the question of the language in which government cheques are printed. There has been no uniformity in the practice prevailing heretofore. Cheques have been in use in bilingual 26207-1-37
form in the province of Quebec for some purposes but not for others. Cheques used for the purpose of making payments of any kind in the other nine provinces have been in English only except for some bilingual cheques issued in Ottawa.
The board has decided that the time has come to end the anomaly of this variety of practices and to bring the practice in relation to cheques into harmony with our practice in relation to Canadian currency, money orders and postal remittances, all of which are in bilingual form.
Accordingly, acting in pursuance of the powers conferred on it by parliament in section 33 (1) of the Financial Administration Act, the board has directed that hereafter, as existing stocks of cheque forms and those already on order are depleted, forms printed in both English and French will be adopted in the case of all cheques drawn on the account of the Receiver General.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should not want in the least to introduce a contentious note in this debate, but I am convinced that the announcement made a few minutes ago by the Minister of Finance, which was greeted very cheerfully by both sides of the house, indicates somewhat the events that will take place shortly. At any rate, we, on this side of the house, are pleased with the government's decision to act along those lines.
I am also convinced, Mr. Speaker, that this decision will be well received by the Canadian people.
(Text):


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this group I wish to express at this time complete approval of the announcement that has been made, and to say that while naturally we would have liked the announcement to have been made long ago-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: -and the record is quite clear in that regard, none the less we are pleased that at long last and with an election almost within sight the government is bringing about bilingual cheques. I am certain that this action by the government will receive general approval from coast to coast. I believe that Canadians recognize the bilingual and bicultural nature of Canada, and will approve what the government has announced today.

Inquiries of the Ministry I am certain that in the province of Quebec this action will be received with genuine approval. I am also certain that it does not meet many of the basic issues that are of concern to the people of that province, but it is another indication that working together we can build a country that will afford the greatest possible benefits to all of its citizens no matter what their native tongue may be.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Speaker, may I say a few words?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I see that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) is rising. Is it in relation to the statement which has just been made?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: It has not been the practice to permit other than the leaders of the parties in the house to speak. If the hon. member would declare what party he is leading-



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I understand that you have called orders of the day and I should like to ask-


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, the Speaker called orders of the day. My question is prompted by the events that have just preceded this interruption, and it is directed to the Minister of Finance. Will the Minister of Finance give the house the assurance that he will introduce a budget before parliament is dissolved so that the people of Canada will know the state of the country's finances?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the people of the country know the state of the country's finances to the full extent that is normal at this time of the year. As I pointed out last week, the time that has elapsed since the last budget is less than is normally the case at this season of the year. If the hon. member can tell me when dissolution may be expected I will be able to give him a more complete answer. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, everybody else seems to be behaving normally around here except the official opposition.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Minister of Finance a supplementary question. Having in mind the fact that he has statutory responsibility as Minister of Finance, does he not think this responsibility

demands that he should inform parliament and the nation now that he proposes to bring in a budget before the dissolution of parliament?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to see the hon. member in such a state of agitation.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: The people of Canada are agitated.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I offer him some well meant but utterly gratuitous advice? I think he should not allow his actions to be so completely dominated by fear and foreboding as they seem to be.


Mr. Pickersgill:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid I cannot accept a supplementary to two improper questions.


Murdo William Martin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure Your Honour did not mean the questions were improper. The people of Canada are entitled to have-*


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Murdo William Martin: The people of Canada and the members of this house are entitled to have from the government, and particularly from the Minister of Finance, a statement showing the condition of the finances of this country; that is not an improper question.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I did not express myself properly. What I meant was that the questions were not proper ones to be asked at this time of the day, not that they were not proper questions.


Murdo William Martin: The Minister of Finance is wholly irresponsible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the answer he gave to a previous question, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether he can assure the house that his ignorance as to dissolution is as great as it was as to cabinet shuffle?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did not hear all the question, but it did not strike me as being a proper one to be raised on the orders of the day.



PRECAUTIONS AGAINST RE-EXPORT OF U.S. GOODS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: On Friday the Leader of the Opposition asked what steps are taken

to ensure that goods exported from Canada to Cuba are not originally from the United States, and whether the exporters are asked to give the original source of goods exported to Cuba.
The export control list contains an item which requires an export permit for the reexport from Canada of all goods originating outside Canada. The item is defined in group 9 of the list. The export permit application form requires that the exporter declare the country of origin of the goods, whether any of the goods are wholly or in part of United States origin, and if so what percentage of the total value of the export are goods of United States origin and what percentage of the value of the goods of United States origin are in the same condition as when imported.
Where goods may be exported without an export permit, the exporter is required under the export permit regulations to declare on the customs entry form B-13 that the export does not contain goods imported from the United States that have not been further processed or manufactured in Canada and the export is in accordance with the Export and Import Permits Act and regulations.
The Export and Import Permits Act provides that officers as defined in the Customs Act have, with respect to any goods to which the Export and Import Permits Act applies, all the powers they have under the Customs Act respecting search, detention, seizure, and forfeiture.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. On November 30, 1960 the minister was asked whether restrictions on strategic exports to communist countries applied equally to Cuba. The answer he gave was no. Does the government now consider Cuba a communist country?


George Harris Hees: For some time Cuba has been included among the countries to which the so-called strategic list applies.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wish to ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of the steps taken by the United States to guard against an expansion of communist influence in Latin America, does the Prime Minister not think it is prejudicial to that objective for Canada at this time to be selling such goods as explosives, motor vehicle parts, aircraft engines and parts and other engines of various types; does the Prime Minister not feel there should be a review of the items on the present so-called non-strategic list?
26207-1-37i
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Fulton:: Sold to where?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Sold to Cuba.


John George Diefenbaker: All I can say in that regard is that we have been most meticulous in our care in ensuring that strategic materials should not be sent to Cuba. I think that course receives the unanimous support of the opposition. That was evidenced by a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition who, I am sure, was speaking for the official opposition.


An hon. Member:: You can never be sure.


John George Diefenbaker: I might point out that the decision of the United States concerned its trade relations with another country. No representations have been made to the Canadian government by the United States along the lines of what was said by the hon. gentleman.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We can act by
ourselves; we need not depend on the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: A moment ago the hon. gentleman seemed to be thinking we should take whatever course another country takes. I am glad to see that he agrees with our stand, that we should make our own determination-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course.


John George Diefenbaker: -having regard always to the need of maintaining intact the determination of the free world to resist communism.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Prime Minister if he would be good enough to answer my question?


John George Diefenbaker: I can do no better than answer it. I cannot furnish intelligence.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps the right hon. gentleman could furnish information.



REFUSAL OF TRAVEL PERMITS FOR EAST GERMAN TEAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister without being nipped in the bud by the rules. In view of reports that the Prime Minister has received a telegram from Mr. Jack Roxburgh, president of the Canadian amateur hockey association, urging the government to officially protest the refusal to grant travel permits for the East German hockey team to play in the world amateur hockey tournament at Colorado Springs next month, will the Prime Minister

Irrqitirie'S'i of. the: Ministry inform the house whether he has received such a, telegram and, of his reaction to this infantile provocation?


Mr. Speaker:: I could not help but pay unusual attention to the question, in view of the, hon, member's introduction. It is quite difficult to draw a line between public and private affairs, but in my opinion the question relates to private affairs.



CURLING-CHAMPIONSHIP MATCHES IN KITCHENER, ONT.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Canadian curling championship for the MacDonald's Brier tankard will be held in Kitchener, Waterloo North, March 5 to 9, 1962?


Hazen Robert Argue: John will be there.



STATEMENT ON PINAL DURUM PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: Yesterday the hon. member for Assiniboia asked whether the minister could give the house any information as to when the final payment for Durum wheat may be paid. The answer is that the final payment with respect to Durum wheat will be made at the same time as payments for other wheat delivered to the 1960-61 pool, as has been the practice in the past.
I may add that the Prime Minister has indicated to the house that the final payment for the 1960-61 wheat pool will be made by seeding time.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask
a question arising out of the minister's statement. The minister has said that payments will be made before the seeding season. I wonder would he indicate when an announcement will be made as to the size of the payments, so that producers may be informed?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not in a position to be able to state that.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Yesterday the hon. member for Kootenay West asked whether the government was giving consideration to the repeal of the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act and
[Mr. Herridge.l

incorporating the provisions of this act with amendments in the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act.
The answer is that the Department of Agriculture, not the government, has been giving consideration to recommending that the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act be repealed and at the same time rewriting the regulations under the provisions of the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): The hon. member for Port Arthur asked me a question yesterday relating to base metal production. He wanted to know what effect, if any, I or the minister responsible can discern in the statement of policy President Kennedy announced last week with regard to stockpiling base metals, and what repercussions it may have here.
The statement by the President of the United States announced the intention to appoint a commission to make a detailed review of United States stockpiling policies, programs and goals in the light of changing defence and strategic requirements and improved technology. The statement indicated his awareness of the intricate and interrelated problems, including the difficulties experienced by certain mineral industries, the impact on world markets and the importance to certain countries in trade in these materials. Then he gave an assurance that no action would be taken which would disrupt commodity prices. Until some indication is available of the findings of that commission, of course no comment could be offered. However, in view of the large stockpile holdings of base metals and other materials important in Canada's export trade, this matter will be kept under close review.
I attach great importance to the assurance given by the President that no action will be taken which will be disruptive to commodity prices.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['The last part of April is commonly about Easter time, and at Easter time the house normally is adjourned.\nInquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE cY']
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might address a question to the Minister of Finance and ask him if the government is at the present time giving active consideration to the promise made by his colleagues from the Atlantic provinces

in 1957 that an Atlantic provinces projects commission would be set up shortly after that election.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall have to examine the assertion made by the hon. gentleman before accepting it as a correct interpretation of anything which may have been said by or on behalf of Progressive Conservative members. I find that the hon. member's interpretation of what he calls promises is farfetched in many cases. However, I draw to his attention the fact that this government has embarked upon more projects of benefit to the Atlantic provinces-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -than any government in Canada's history.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order. You have ruled on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, that questions asked on the orders of the day in this house should be genuine questions and that the replies given by ministers should be in response to the questions asked, not political speeches. My inquiry, I submit, was made without any adornments whatsoever; it was a simple question about a promise made before the 1957 election. The minister does not seem to know the promise was made, and he proceeded to make an irrelevant statement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I made a nonpolitical response to a political question.


Mr. Speaker:: I had some doubt as to the urgency of the question, having regard to the time when the promise was alleged to have been made. However, I have no doubt that the answer was out of order, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate indicated.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister say whether an invitation has been or will be sent to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to address the Canadian parliament when he is in Ottawa during the latter part of April Of this year?


John George Diefenbaker: The last part of April is commonly about Easter time, and at Easter time the house normally is adjourned.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE cY



CONSTRUCTION OF NUCLEAR WARHEAD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence and ask him whether he has authorized the construction of nuclear warhead ammunition storehouses this year on the sites of Canadian military establishments in France and Germany.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Under the NATO infrastructure plan, NATO has authorized this work and construction is going forward in connection with certain storage accommodation of this nature.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister say whether the nuclear warheads stored at Canadian military establishments in France and Germany are for the use of Canadian forces equipped with nuclear weapons?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, as I had indicated before, the placing of storage sites for nuclear warheads in the territory of the West German Federal Republic is a matter for agreement between NATO authorities and the West German republic. Some of these may be located near where our troops are stationed, but they are not our installations.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	.
Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has any final decision been made in the case of Bernard Ndar, who wished to enter Canada in order to attend Regiopolis school in Kingston?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: No. The story behind this particular case is that this young man wrote last year and asked if he could come to Canada to take one or two subjects to complete his high school training so as to be eligible for admission to a Canadian university. Unfortunately he did not write until about October, and the high school year was well under way at that time. He was told he was a little late, but that if he wished to come next year and enroll in a university we would be glad to permit entry several months ahead of time so that he could brush up the subjects in which he required further tuition.
578	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
To this letter no answer has been received. In the meantime the school to which he was to have been destined has withdrawn its application. I know nothing about any subsequent stories which have appeared in the press, but that represents the true state of affairs.



MEETING WITH PREMIERS RESPECTING NATIONAL GRID

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister based on a press report that Premier Bennett has suggested a meeting of the premiers to discuss a possible national energy grid. Can the Prime Minister advise the house as to the attitude of the government toward the suggestion?


John George Diefenbaker: I have had correspondence with some of the premiers in connection with an invitation which I extended to the provinces on behalf of the federal government to meet together with advisers and give consideration to the establishment of a national power grid.
Naturally any meetings which may take place between the premiers of the provinces are matters for them. But I think there is, in addition to the provincial jurisdiction over power, particularly in the territorial jurisdiction of each of the provinces, a national problem which needs co-ordination with the federal authority. I hope we will be able to bring about such a meeting so that by co-operation with the provinces Canada may be able to arrive at a policy that will assure the necessary power in the years ahead for Canada to expand and develop industry as never before.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question. Has the Prime Minister taken cognizance of the statement made by one of the leading experts in this matter, namely Mr. Briggs, who made it clear in a paper not so long ago that a national power grid at this time was not practicable? Has the right hon. gentleman any comment to make on that aspect of the question?


John George Diefenbaker: There are various
opinions. I find that no matter how good the stand taken over here, the opposition always says it is wrong. I am not placing the individual in question in that position, but there will always be a diversity of opinion. We in the federal government believe that in co-operation with the provinces achievements may be


attained in connection with power which will prove their worth in the years ahead.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr. Briggs the individual in question is one of his own appointees?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. gentleman is putting forward a question which is more an argument than a question. In my view the matter has gone as far as it can without becoming a debate.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the hon. gentleman's answer to my question No. 91 yesterday, would he consider introducing an amendment to the appropriate statute that would empower his department to require cigarette manufacturers to list and give full particulars of the percentages of all the ingredients of their cigarettes, similar to that required in the case of patent medicines?


Hon. J. W. Monleiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: My department is continuously giving consideration to all these problems, and when a decision is reached we shall announce it in the usual manner.



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF MEAT INSPECTION SERVICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare regarding the sale of unfit meat. Can the minister say whether he has been able to arrange a conference with representatives of the provinces to discuss this matter? If so, with what provinces, and when will the meeting take place?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position at the moment to answer that question in detail. Replies have yet to be received from some of the provinces. I hope to be able to make a decision in this respect very shortly.
(Translation):



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.

In view of the fact that the former under secretary of state handed in his resignation about six months ago, could the Secretary of State tell the house if a new appointment will be made soon?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under consideration. The hon. member for Laurier undoubtedly knows that the Secretary of State does not have the exclusive privilege of choosing his under secretary. At any rate, this matter will be settled shortly.
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr-. Speaker, in the light of that answer I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the under secretary of state handed in his resignation some six months ago, may I inquire of the Prime Minister when it is the intention of the government to appoint a successor to that position?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I anticipate being able to make that announcement very shortly.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that we have had one day's debate concerning social welfare measures, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is now disposed to table the replies he received from the provincial premiers in answer to his letter, which was referred to in this house during the early part of the session?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I had the documents in my hand at the time the hon. gentleman rose.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman should have tabled them yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: He must have noticed that I was prepared to ask the house whether or not it would be in order to table them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They should have been tabled yesterday; that is the point.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not had the consent of the premier of Quebec, although he did make reference to tabling in the reply he gave. I communicated with him by wire, and not having received an answer to the contrary I expect he would have no objection.
I therefore wish to table copies of correspondence received from the premiers of
Inquiries of the Ministry Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Manitoba. To complete the record I shall also table my reply to the premier of Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister leave to table the documents in question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, for the convenience of hon. members may I ask the Prime Minister whether he would ask to have the documents printed as an appendix to Hansard as was his original letter to the premiers?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My original letter to the premiers was printed as an appendix to Hansard. In order to have the record complete I am sure the house will agree that the hon. member's suggestion should be followed.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree that the documents now tabled to printed as an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of documents above referred to see appendix].



PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, because it concerns a matter of principle I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister any comment to make concerning a story by Mr. Greg Connolley which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen to the effect that an established preliminary to any press releases or conferences by the minister is a private release to a few selected journalists?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I know the great interest my hon. friend has in questions of principle. For that reason I shall leave his question completely unanswered.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Because of the presence in Ottawa of the delegation concerned about the joint planning of the C.B.C. operation and the centennial coliseum, would the minister give consideration to a feasibility study to expedite the solution to this problem?

Old Age Security Act


David James Walker: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have manifold duties but I have not yet been assigned responsibility for the C.B.C. nor do I expect to be given that responsibility. I shall, however, be very happy to refer this matter to the Minister of National Revenue.



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT


Jay Waldo Monteith: the second reading of Bill No. C-54, to amend the Old Age Security Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members will notice from a perusal of Bill No. C-54, the amendment we are proposing to the Old Age Security Act is simple and straightforward. It involves a $10 increase in the universal federal payment bringing the level of the old age security benefit to an all time high of $65 a month. This new level is to take effect as of February 1, 1962. That means the first increased cheques will be in recipients' hands by the end of February.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the minister would allow me to interrupt to clarify one matter in my own mind, at least, and perhaps in the minds of other hon. members of the house. I am interested in ensuring that the bill is available in both English and French notwithstanding the fact that the order paper does not so indicate by the usual initials, E.F.
Hon. members will recall that our rules preclude debate on second reading unless the bill is available in both languages. I am now assured by the table that it is available, but I did not wish the debate to proceed without the house being clear on that question.


Jay Waldo Monteith: On the matter of the financial implications of this change, I have already indicated to the house that additional outlays are estimated at $113.4 million over the next 12 months. When account is taken of the expected increase in the number of recipients, total federal expenditures under the Old Age Security Act are projected at about $737 million for the coming fiscal year, 1962-63.
This very substantial sum provides striking evidence of the government's concern for the well being of Canada's senior citizens. Nor is our support of senior citizens limited to the old age security program. As hon. members are aware, federal contributions in this regard are also made under the Old Age Assistance Act and the unemployment assistance program. The cost of these two measures is of course shared with the provinces, but the

fact remains that the dominion government carries the bulk of the responsibility for meeting the economic needs of the older people of this country.
By way of illustration I might point out that for the fiscal year 1961-1962 total income maintenance payments under old age security, old age assistance and supplementary allowances are estimated at roughly $708 million. Of this amount the federal government is expected to contribute some $666 million or 94 per cent of the total. The remainder will be provided by the provinces and/or the municipalities.
These figures give an indication of the situation within Canada, but I think it is also interesting to see where we stand on the matter of old age income security as compared with other countries. Let us consider the United States, for example. Unfortunately the latest breakdown of United States outlays is for 1959-1960 so the comparison cannot be as up to date as the one I have cited for Canada alone. Nevertheless I think the comparison is instructive.
In the United States, in 1959-60, payments to aged pensioners under the old age and survivors insurance program together with federal-state outlays for old age assistance amounted to 2.66 per cent of net national income. In Canada, for the same year, total outlays on behalf of senior citizens under old age security, old age assistance and supplementary allowances amounted to 2.41 per cent of net national income. At the same time the Canadian figure is somewhat higher than the relative percentage for another federally organized country, namely Australia. In Australia the corresponding proportion of net national income devoted to old age income security in 1959-60 was 2.30 per cent.
The actions now being taken on old age pensions will of course place Canada in a much more favourable position as measured by the relationship of old age income benefits to net national income. They will also increase the differential previously in our favour with respect to rates of benefit. For example, in June 1960 the average benefit being paid to retired single workers under the United States old age and survivors insurance program was equal to 37.2 per cent of personal income per capita. Here I would stress the work "average" because, as hon. members may be aware, the United States program does not have a flat rate benefit but embodies a graduated system with payments to individuals varying over a wide range. In any event, the average paid in June, 1960 was equivalent to 37.2 per cent of personal income per capita. In Canada, by contrast, the rate being paid to all recipients of old age security stood at 42.9 per cent of personal income per capita.

If we take the case of retired workers with wives eligible for pension, we find that Canada's position is even more favourable. In June, 1960 the average benefit payable in the United States under such circumstances was equal to 66 per cent of average personal income. This was considerably lower than the percentage in Canada for a husband and wife both in receipt of old age security. The benefits paid to all couples in this position in our country worked out to 85.7 per cent of average personal income.
Here I should point out that these comparisons do not take into account subsequent adjustments in the United States program and the proposed increases now being put forward by this government. It is anticipated that when the situation is analysed on the basis of data for 1962, the relevant percentages will place Canada in an even more advantageous position.
I trust that I have not burdened the house too much with statistics, Mr. Speaker, but it seems to me that in this case they are the most effective way of outlining a situation which I am sure is of great interest to all hon. members.
In my opening remarks at the resolution stage preceding introduction of this bill I made reference to the relationship between the changes now being proposed and the contributory pension plan forecast in the speech from the throne. Because of the close connection between these matters I should like to elaborate a little further on our intentions with regard to the contributory program.
As the house is aware, the present government was responsible for having a comprehensive report prepared on this subject by Professor Robert M. Clark. Following exhaustive study of this document and other relevant material, it was decided that a contributory old age, survivors and disability insurance program bearing certain similarities to the United States plan should be established as a logical means of completing the structure of systematic provision for retirement income in Canada. This structure already includes the basic old age security pension, the means test old age assistance pension paid jointly by the provinces and the federal government, the supplementary public assistance payments under the Unemployment Assistance Act paid on a needs test basis by the provinces and the federal government, the many existing industrial pension plans, and finally the registered retirement savings plans that have been a special feature of Canadian experience in recent years.
With the current proposal, one could reasonably claim that the edifice will have been completed without detracting from the existing elements of the structure. In a nutshell,
OZd Age Security Act
our proposal is to complement existing measures through the establishment of a system of old age insurance payments. This is in line with the policy laid down by the Prime Minister on January 13, 1958 as reported on page 3234 of Hansard. At that time the Prime Minister stated as follows:
... the course to be followed would be that it would be in addition to. over and above, old age security.
The benefits under this projected program will be payable to all contributors on reaching retirement age of 65 years or over, and will vary with the size of a person's contributions during his working life. In cases where a contributor dies or becomes disabled before reaching retirement age, his widow and dependant children or he himself if disabled will be able to draw advance benefits from the credits he has built up in this contributory program. If anyone wishes to receive the benefit at an earlier age, an actuarially reduced benefit may be received as early as age 62. As mentioned at the resolution stage yesterday, this provision is available under the old age and survivors insurance program in the United States.
We have no intention of putting heavy additional costs on private industry. Many private pension plans now in operation are making adequate provision for employees enrolled under such plans. To the extent that existing private pension plans are considered to be satisfactory as compared with the; proposed government plan, persons Covered under these plans will be exempt from the compulsory features of the new program.
We do not intend to duplicate private pension coverage for Canadians. Any scheme which loads the costs of a public program on top of existing private schemes will be placing a very heavy burden on the competitive position of Canadian industry. Existing pension plans which provide benefits equal to or better than the proposed government plans should be encouraged to continue their operations. When the United States old age and survivors insurance program commenced in 1937, private pension plans were not widespread in that country. Now, 25 years later, We have in this country many private pension plans which must be recognized in any system of nation-wide old age insurance. Under the recent British legislation it was found advisable to permit existing private pension plans which were considered to be satisfactory to continue operation and to exempt persons covered by them from the graduated supplementary old age pension plan introduced by the British government. This is an aspect of the British program in which we are particularly interested.
A further point I might make is that the new contributory system will be financed by

Old Age Security Act
contributions from employers, employees, and the self-employed who come within its provision.
Yesterday at the resolution stage several hon. members made extremely useful contributions to the debate. However, I am afraid that I cannot say this for the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). As far as some of the statements made by the hon. member for Essex East are concerned, it strikes me that they made him look pretty ridiculous. He made a statement accusing the government of competing for votes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to the Liberal platform which was issued a few weeks ago and which claimed to have all the answers. They felt they had all the answers. However, on January 30 the hon. member for Essex East made a statement at a luncheon meeting at the Chateau Laurier hotel during the Liberal conference, and the whole plan was changed considerably. I should not say that all details were changed, but certainly it was a different plan.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was not a different plan, and you know it.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Certainly the answers are different.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not at all. You did not read it.


Jay Waldo Monteith: They claimed to have all the answers in their first pamphlet but now they come back with another statement. They are different answers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to worry you a lot.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to know who actually has been doing the competing for votes. I do not know how anybody could be more inconsistent or more competitive for votes. To me this simply indicates no sense of responsibility whatever. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, this type of thing reminds me of the Liberal promise in 1919 concerning hospital insurance, which finally came to fruition 38 years later. While the actual hospital insurance act was passed when the Liberals were in power, it fell to the Conservatives to implement it.
There is another reference I should like to make. When the hon. member for Essex East was speaking on the resolution yesterday he indicated that the Liberal party was putting forward a plan that was responsible and involved no further taxes, but would be paid

for out of the contributions of individuals. I do not know just what this means. I claim it is only a play on words. Whether the program is provided for from ordinary revenues, from earmarked taxes or from payroll taxes, somebody has to pay for it. These are all levies imposed by parliament. In my view the performance of the hon. member yesterday was simply one of desperation.
Much has been said about the constitutional issue and I am sure more will be said before the debate is finished, but I should like to place on the record again a paragraph which formed part of my speech yesterday. I said then, as found on page 531 of Hansard:
The constitutional question may be raised. When the Liberal government was considering the introduction of unemployment insurance in 1940 the prime minister of the day wrote to the provinces and consulted with them concerning an amendment to the B.N.A. Act. All provinces agreed, and an amendment was obtained stating beyond doubt that the authority for such a program was within federal jurisdiction. Again, in 1951, the Liberal government sought an amendment as a basis for the introduction of the old age security program, and a mutually satisfactory amendment was worked out.
The present government follows the same procedure, Mr. Speaker, and we hear objections. The Liberals say it is not necessary for us to consult the provinces. If the Liberal party is not concerned with provincial rights and due regard for the constitution, that is a matter that I think should be brought before the public now. The program that the government proposes to place before the house involves the provision of benefits to widows, dependant children and disabled persons under a social insurance plan.
The Liberal party issued a pamphlet some weeks ago which claimed to have all the answers, but they have different answers now. I am not too sure whether this clause should be considered part of their platform but at any rate one plank, shall I put it, was the provision of pension benefits to those who are disabled before retirement age, and to widows and orphans. As I understand the situation, that coincides exactly with our plan.
There is no doubt that the advice we have received from the law officers of the crown is simply to the effect that the present section 94A of the B.N.A. Act does not encompass such benefits. Contributory old age pensions as such may be covered, but not benefits for disabled persons and for widows and orphans. I claim that these two gentlemen who spoke yesterday for the Liberal party indicated clearly that they had not read the Clark report. I do not think anything could be clearer from a reading of their speeches.
There will be more speeches today, and I propose to say a few words in reply at the end of the debate. I claim that this is good,

sound, sensible legislation. It is going to be of great benefit to more than 930,000 Canadian citizens, and I should like to commend the bill for early passage by the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, every time the Minister of National Health and Welfare makes a speech one learns more and more about his amazing technique and his day to day knowledge of the problems that come under his administration. He gave us more details today about a plan that is not yet in existence, but which the government seems now, at long last, at least to have in the back of its mind as something that some day it might do if perchance it ever has the opportunity again.
The minister certainly reflected the dilemma in which members of the government find themselves when they come to examine the record of the various Liberal governments in the field of social welfare. They have to go back to 1919 to try to find whether promises made by a Liberal administration have been fulfilled. Of course this is not a new disc. One hears it in the house from time to time, emanating from ministerial benches, but it is significant that they never complain about failure of Liberal governments under Mackenzie King or under Mr. St. Laurent to implement promises made in the area of social legislation.
There is no complaint by hon. members opposite that the Liberal party failed to carry out the assurances given by Mr. Mackenzie King in 1925 as to his intentions regarding old age pensions. Hon. gentlemen do not complain, nor do they find any justification for saying that Liberal governments failed to implement promises in the field of family allowances or with regard to old age assistance or blindness allowances. They could not under any circumstances, of course, make any charge about non-fulfilment of promises with regard to disability pensions because no such promise was made by a Liberal government. It was after Mr. St. Laurent's return to office the second time that he caused the Disabled Persons Act to be introduced in the house, which has provided assistance to so many people in this country and in connection with which we are to be happily confronted with an amendment some time later during the course of our proceedings.
Nor do we hear any complaint from the government side that the Liberals have brought forward legislation to assist the provinces in carrying out their constitutional obligations in the field of health care. It will be remembered that in 1945 the federal government put before the provinces what has been termed a package deal. This was
26207-1-38i
Old Age Security Act
a program covering health and welfare, a comprehensive program most of which has since been realized. There was no obligation on the part of the government of Canada in relation to any promise that it had made to make grants in aid to the provinces, to assist them in laying the foundation for a health insurance system in this country.
One could cover the whole area of health and welfare activity and one would not find that hon. members opposite have ever complained about the lack of the Liberal government in the fulfilment of its promises. I believe, sir, that is a record of which we may well be proud in this party. We take the view that promises made to the Canadian people during an election, or during the course of the fulfilment of an official obligation on the part of various ministers and of the government as a whole, are solemn promises that must be respected by those who make them. We do not take the view once expressed by the Minister of National Revenue in this house that there was a difference between a commitment made by a government to parliament and a commitment made by government to the people of Canada during the course of an election. The latter kind of promise the Minister of National Revenue, in his characteristically able manner, suggested was a promise that no government had to keep. This is not the view of the Liberal party. What I have said about our fulfilment of promises in the field of health and welfare supports what I have said about our respect for our commitments to parliament and to the people of Canada.
I wish I could say the same thing for this government. We have had an example today, through the admission of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that his government has not fulfilled a solemn promise made to the Canadian people. Perhaps last night the Minister of Labour let the cat out of the bag. After I had recited some of the essential features of the plan which the Leader of the Opposition had enunciated on January 5, the Minister of Labour indicated clearly what was in his mind, what was in the mind of the Prime Minister and his colleagues, with regard to the pledges which they put forward in this field to the Canadian people. The Minister of Labour exclaimed "Election promises. ' This is exactly what the government is thinking, that is the context in which they place their views of social welfare in this country; election promises.
The most outstanding election promise made by this government in the field of social welfare was with regard to a program that has so obviously agitated the Minister of National Health and Welfare and has caused

Old Age Security Act
wide wonderment. Yesterday when he was introducing a simple amendment which we support, as we do this bill, involving an inadequate increase in the universal old age security plan he went on, not to talk about that increase, but rather to indicate that it did not have the same significance as the contributory plan. He went on to talk about that plan, not the plan of the government but the plan the Liberal party put forward on January 5.
He gave us some details of that plan. He also gave us some criticisms of the plan put forward by the Liberal party which would establish a national minimum pension of $75 a month, not $65 as is proposed by this bill. This plan would be based upon contributions by the Canadian people which would result in much larger pensions, which would be paid for by contributions by Canadian citizens. Then today we had an amazing tour de force on the part of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He came back again to our plan. He did not discuss the bill. I do riot believe the minister said five sentences about the bill that is immediately before the house. What did he do? He talked about the Liberal contributory plan, the plan that is going to give the Canadian people a national minimum pension of $75. That is the plan about which he talked today. He talked about it at greater length even than he did yesterday, and Clearly established in the minds of all of us the apprehension and agitation that has taken hold of those who sit on the ministerial benches.
They' do not like this plan because they know that, plaCed alongside what the government is now proposing, this plan put forward by the Liberal leader will commend itself to the Canadian people as a more comprehensive way of dealing with the problem of old age security in this Country. Not only did he discuss our plan' in greater detail, but he discussed in greater detail the kind of plan which was envisaged by1 the Prime Minister in November, 1957, as well as in the months of January and February, 1958, when he made the solemn Commitment to the Canadian people that his government would forthwith introduce a national contributory scheme modelled on the lines of the social security system in the United States.
He talked about that today in greater detail than he did yesterday. Why did he do this? Why did he not tell the provinces, why did the Prime Minister not tell the provinces, some of the details of that plan when he wrote to them in the month of January asking for concurrence in the constitutional amendment to enable the government to introduce a, contributory scheme? Why did the Prime Minister not tell the provinces the details

which we were given today in greater precision? I suggest that the reason is obvious. The government has no detailed plan. The only plan the government has evolved since is one that was evolved under pressure, because of the exposition of the Liberal plan to provide for a national minimum pension, as enunciated by the Liberal leader on January 5.
Today the Minister of National Health and Welfare has given us more details than he did yesterday only because, after reading the morning newspapers, after listening to television and radio, he found his own plan had been engulfed and overwhelmed by public interest in the Liberal plan. Then he found it necessary, and I suspect at the bidding of the Prime Minister, to talk more glowingly, more eloquently, more vigorously about something that may come some time in the uncertain future. This is the situation in the face of the fact that this government has caused to be prepared the report on economic security for the aged in the United States and Canada by Dr. Robert M. Clark, which was presented to parliament in. two volumes in 1959.
We all know the circumstances under which that report was made. These circumstances were outlined last night. If I may remind hon. gentlemen, we were told that the Prime Minister had indicated to the Canadian people and to parliament that he was anxious in 1958 to adopt a system similar to the social security plan in the United States; that there was going to be a careful study. Notwithstanding the attitude taken by the Minister of Finance, notwithstanding the attitude taken by the Prime Minister in 1958, notwithstanding the advice officials in the Department of National Health and Welfare may have offered, the government was going to make a study and that study would be followed by action by this government. The unfulfilled promise in the field of social welfare for which this government must stand indicted, is that of causing the Canadian people to believe it was going to bring forward a plan based on the Clark report. Now all we get from this government and this active Minister of National Health and Welfare, just on the eve of an election, is a portrayal of some vague conception the government might have with regard to something that it might do in the uncertain future regarding the adoption in Canada of the old age security and survivor system implemented in the United States.
Well, Mr. Speaker, promises made to the Canadian people are not to be respected. The Minister of National Revenue said there is a difference between a promise made to parliament and a promise made to the Canadian people, and the Minister of Labour said

"an election promise". Is this vague recital of a plan, whose soul will take on form in the long distant future, to be regarded simply as a promise? I say that the Minister of National Health and Welfare holds a responsible position under the crown, a position which in this country has attached to it the respect and authority which parliament has conferred upon it.
This government has treated the aged people of our country in an irresponsible manner, such as has rarely been exhibited in the parliament of Canada, and no one has done that more than the right hon. Prime Minister. Today, on the second day of this debate, he tabled letters which he should have tabled yesterday. If the consent of all the premiers had not been received, certainly consent from at least the majority of them had come in, and we should have been afforded the opportunity of examining those letters for the purposes of our discussion yesterday, letters which were reluctantly tabled by the Prime Minister.
Today we find some of the premiers taking the position that they would like to examine the proposal put forward by the Prime Minister of Canada with regard to a proposed amendment that might lead to the establishment in this country of a system somewhat similar to the social security plan in the United States. Here is what the premier of Quebec said, among other things, in his letter to the Prime Minister of Canada on January 24:
(Translation):
I sincerely believe it to be essential that your government supply the provinces with the details of your plan before asking them to propose to their legislatures that they agree to a constitutional amendment.
(Text):
What is the premier asking? He is saying "before giving our consent we would like to know what it is you want to do; we would like to have some idea of the plan you have in mind; we would like to have some precision as to the kind of amendment you seek." It well may be that the premier of Quebec and other premiers would take the position that the amendment obtained in 1950 to the British North America Act, section 94A, was wide enough to permit the federal government to embark upon a contributory plan, even along the lines so vaguely conceived and projected today by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Why were the provinces not given at least the details which the minister gave yesterday? Certainly there could be no justification for not giving the further details he gave today with regard to what the government had in mind
5*5
Old Age Security Act concerning the adoption of a system similar to that in the United States, the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian countries.
The reason is that in spite of the Clark report, in spite of the promises of the Prime Minister, in spite of the lapse of four years, he has waited until this time to give precision to something which he said he had in his mind and heart in November, 1957, and upon which he later elaborated on January 18, 1958. Let the Minister of National Health and Welfare not talk about promises. Let him not belittle the plan that was enunciated by the Liberal leader on January 5; because that plan, based upon careful consideration and study and supported by the evidence and documentation in the Clark report, is a responsible scheme which the Canadian people are demanding, and for which they supported the Prime Minister when, during the election of 1958, he told them he was going to supplement the existing universal system with a system similar to that in the United States.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare, in bringing forward his proposal today for an increase under the Old Age Security Act, neglected to say something which he neglects to observe on all occasions, that once again he was bringing in an amendment to an act introduced by a Liberal administration. He neglected to say that the Old Age Security Act is the only act of its kind to be found in any country in the world, that it is the only act which provides for the elimination of a means test. It is the only old age security act which extends benefit to all Canadian citizens when they reach the qualifying age of 70 years.
The minister spoke as though the Old Age Security Act, bringing benefit to the limited extent it does to over 900,000 people, was a product of the present administration. My hon. friend nods his head, and I can only take by that action that the hon. gentleman has no concept whatsoever of the basic act of which this is a modest and wholely inadequate amendment. I can only conclude when the minister nods his head that he fails to appreciate that as a result of the initiative taken by a Liberal government, acting upon the recommendations of an all-party committee in this house, it introduced a measure under which at that time almost 800,000 Canadians received beneficial consequences. Now, even when he says there are over 900,000 people who receive assistance under that act, why does he not tell us that when he took office as minister, almost that number of people were receiving assistance under the Old Age Security Act? He does not do that, Mr. Speaker. This government is not reluctant to take credit, not only for its own

Old Age Security Act
abbreviated achievements but also it takes credit for the achievements of its predecessors.
Did not the Prime Minister make the boast that under his prime ministership and his government there had been established, for the first time in Canada, an all round social security program? However, the fact is that his government has not brought in, as I mentioned yesterday and as I repeat today, one single act except by way of amendments to acts that were introduced by Liberal governments.
The minister went on today to talk about further assistance which the government has in mind under the Old Age Assistance Act. I do not know what that had to do with this bill, but the minister devoted a considerable portion of his statement to this aspect. However, he also neglected to say that it too owes its parentage to a Liberal administration. He neglected to say what I invited him to say last night, that by the passage of the Old Age Assistance Act, in the absence of agreement among the provinces, this parliament was doing no more than to declare by way of statute its willingness to increase its share of the basic amount which it pays to the provinces thereby trying to create the impression that not only has the government brought in an amendment to the Old Age Security Act but that it has brought forward assistance to those between the ages of 65 and 70. The minister was not able to tell us what was the attitude of the provinces with regard to this matter. I hope the provinces will agree. Until they do agree, not one cent will go into the pockets of those who come within the age group 65-69 under the Old Age Assistance Act.


Mr. Spencer:: Nor under your plan.


Murdo William Martin: Of course not, but we do not give the impression-I say this in answer to the hon. member from Essex West -that what this parliament does in respect of an assistance program automatically involves financial benefits to the people in question. The Minister of National Health and Welfare should have met that point if he did not want to deceive the Canadian people. The fact is that some newspapers have already mistakenly suggested that this government is going to put money into the hands of those within this age group, when such is not the case. I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to tell us now, when are the provinces going to be called together to discuss this old age assistance program? Or is the government going to await their approval by letter.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I shall be happy to answer the hon. member. The representatives

of the provinces are not going to meet together to discuss this. When the legislation is passed in this parliament they will have the opportunity to put their own legislation into effect, and certain provinces have already indicated that they intend to do so. Thus the hon. member's statement that this measure will not affect the people of Canada is entirely wrong.


Murdo William Martin: Very well. Now we are getting somewhere. Last night we could not elicit from the minister even an acknowledgment that the question existed.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No. I said last night I had notified the provinces.


Murdo William Martin: Now the minister says some provinces have indicated approval. That is fine. It is not necessary for them to assemble in full conference, of course. However, that is the better way. That is what we did in 1946. We called the provinces in and told them what we were going to do not only in the field of old age security but in regard to old age assistance as well. We gave them an idea of our views as to what the amount of outside income should be, why we were embarking on the payment of an additional amount of assistance, and so on. According to this government all it has now is a letter which by the way, has not been produced.
There is another example of the government's reluctance to take the house into its confidence. Why should not the minister produce this correspondence to which he has just made reference? Why should he not do that without waiting for an invitation? Why does he not let us know which provinces have agreed, together with the terms on which they have agreed, so that we might be able to ascertain whether those provinces which make low supplementary payments are among those who have agreed to participate? But no; nothing of the sort has been forthcoming from this government, simply because we have in office at the present time an administration which has a tremendous capacity for dramatization, a tremendous capacity to convey the idea that it really has done what it has not done. That is all the government is, dramatis personae personified.
The hon. gentleman said that in the United States they do not have a universal scheme. That is true. In the United States they have a scheme of grants to individual pensioners in addition to the social security system. These grants are devised by each state. What is the meaning of that in relation to this legislation? It is simply this; that Canada, back in 1950, took an initiative which has not been paralleled by any country in the world, including the United States. It was not the present government which took that initiative.

What the minister should have done today, and what I invite him to do before this discussion is over, is to tell this committee frankly why no action has been taken on the Clark report. That is the question. Does the minister deny that the Prime Minister gave an assurance during the course of an election campaign that he would embark upon a social security system for Canada similar to that which exists in the United States? Does the minister deny the reports in the Globe and Mail and elsewhere to that effect? Does the Minister of National Health and Welfare believe for one moment that he, for his part, can hope to establish good faith, in so far as that is ascertained by the members of this house or by the Canadian people, when he delayed so long in telling this house when he had received the Clark report, and when he delayed so long in announcing government policy with regard to that report? Can the minister sit there oblivious of this challenge, unwilling to explain to this committee and to the country, on the eve of an election, particularly, why the government has not acted with regard to something which the Prime Minister said was dear to his heart and which was before very long, before four months had gone by, to become part of the law of the land?
Well, I have an idea why the minister should be unwilling to give us an explanation. I mentioned one aspect of this yesterday, and I shall mention it today in greater detail. I have one idea why this government has not embarked upon a social security system similar to that of the United States. After all the Minister of Finance is still a member of the government. There was some doubt a few weeks ago as to whether this was the case. The hon. gentleman made a very difficult and heart-searching trip to the capital of the province of Quebec under circumstances which, I am sure, no other minister of the crown in Canada's history has ever taken. There were stories in the newspapers for many days that he was about to take over the portfolio, now so gloriously administered by the present Minister of Justice. Other stories suggested that he was going to leave the cabinet. He was supposed to have engaged in indiscretions at Accra; he was supposed to have engaged in public brawls with representatives of other countries in a way that endangered the prestige of the government and of the people of Canada.
It is known, of course, that the same minister had got into some difficulty with the former governor of the Bank of Canada and, unfortunately, the Coyne-Fleming issue had created such a distaste in the public mind that in normal circumstances it is understandable that the Prime Minister should find him-
Old Age Security Act
self a little embarrassed by these examples of indiscretion and imprudence on the part of one of his principal ministers.
That may be the case but surely, under our system of government, the essence of cabinet action is solidarity. Solidarity, in turn, depends on unity, and if there is public knowledge of disunity, that disunity must be removed forthwith. The way to remove it is for the head of the government to say, as I believe the Prime Minister should have said in this instance, "These stories are false; the Minister of Finance is a good minister of finance; he is not going to be demoted; he is not being shifted to the ministry of justice". I say this with all apology to the present Minister of Justice. I hope he does not regard this as a reflection upon the priorities which obviously have been established-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not taking you seriously at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course not. The trouble with the Minister of Justice is that he takes few things seriously. But he should take this seriously, because the Minister of Justice is part of this story.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, I have a sense of humour-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is a certain amount of commotion which, perhaps, is not uninvited by the hon. member's lengthy digression from the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, what I was going to say has a very great bearing on it, because the Minister of Justice is part of the story. That is for another chapter-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Fable, you should call it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I consider that if the Prime Minister wished to create a sense of confidence in the Canadian people and in the executive arm of goverment, he should either have caused the Minister of Finance to have been dismissed forthwith or he should have repudiated at once any suggestion that he did not have confidence in that minister of finance. I have an idea that it was not only the Coyne affair, not only the indiscretion at Accra; it was because within the cabinet at that time important discussions were taking place as to whether or not Canada should embark on a social security system on the United States model such as the Prime Minister had said we were going to have in Canada; and because the Minister of Finance, through the words I am about to quote, stands as an opponent of the adoption of the kind of social security system they have in the United States.
If these are not his views the hon. gentleman will have an opportunity of denying it later, but as one holding the key position as minister of finance he may be regarded as

Old Age Security Act
the real reason why this government even at this late date has not brought forward proposals or legislation based on the United States social security system.
Let us examine what the present Minister of Finance said in this house on October 25, 1951-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the hon. member permit a question? I do not recall; was my hon. friend a member of that all party committee at that time? I believe he was.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Once again the minister is wrong. Unfortunately I was not. The Minister of Finance on October 25, 1951, as reported at page 392 of Hansard, said:
There are those outside the house who have expressed some regret that the orthodox contributory system on the insurance basis has not been introduced They point to the system which has prevailed in the United Kingdom as probably the leading precedent.
I observe, Mr. Speaker,, that you are greatly interested in what I am about to read:
Undoubtedly great benefit is to be associated with the idea of bringing home to every individual the fact that the benefit he receives upon attaining the necessary age has cost money, that he has had to pay his share toward it, and has earned it as of right. Any weakening of that principle is something the committee viewed with some measure of apprehension. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, if I correctly understand the feelings of the committee as expressed in the course of our lengthy discussions, the factor which led the committee to reject the insurance system was that necessarily it would have been incomplete in its operation in our country, that it could not possibly have extended to even half of those to whom the universal system will extend, and that it would have become absolutely necessary to provide for others, no doubt in substantial numbers, by a continuation of the assistance program. That, in turn, would inevitably have involved the continuance of the means test.
The committee, in the face of this and other considerations, arrived-and I think soundly-at the decision to recommend the universal pay-as-you-go-system. It has the advantage of simplicity from the administrative point of view. That, sir, is one of the features about the present proposal that I suggest is entitled to the highest measure of commendation.
The Minister of Finance expressed his concern about the United States social security system in public speeches made throughout the country. I am not saying they were not sincere; I am simply saying that was the view of the Minister of Finance.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It was the view of the committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, of course, it was also the view of the committee at that time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It was a committee on which Liberals formed the majority.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, the minister is right again. The Minister of Justice is

doing well today. The fact is, however, that those were the views of the Minister of Finance, but at that time those were not the views of the Prime Minister because, earlier than 1957, speaking in this house on old age pensions the present Prime Minister expressed a view strongly in support of the United States social security system.
This year, even though we do not have a budget, the Minister of Finance is going to be faced with a possible deficit of close to or greater than $1 billion. Undoubtedly those considerations would be in his mind if he continued to take the view which he took in 1951 and which he expressed at other times throughout the country. I suggest it is open to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Prime Minister and particularly the Minister of Finance to deny that the latter is a stumbling block.
What I am trying to do now is find some reason why this government, having had the Clark report in its hands for four years, has not come forward with a positive enactment, which would enable all parties in this house to join together in establishing an old age security system based on the full principle of contribution, one which would discourage the kind of undignified auctioneering in which some political parties are presently engaged.


An hon. Member:: Your own indictment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. members opposite laugh. Their only good fortune these days is to laugh. Perhaps before too long they will have an opportunity of doing something else.
Mr. Pallet!: Cheering.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But the fact is that this contributory scheme which was outlined by the Liberal leader will, once it is enacted-and it will be enacted by a Liberal government at the earliest possible moment after we take office-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that scheme will have in Canada the consequences similar schemes have had in the United Kingdom, the United States and elsewhere. The plans in those countries have discouraged the competitive demands that have been made by governments and political parties with no sense of responsibility whatever. We have witnessed that on the part of hon. members who compose the government of Canada at this time.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare today paid more attention to our plan than he did to the bill before the house.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, would the hon gentleman permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely. I have all day.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Would the hon. gentleman state why his leader is opposed to an increased pension of $65 a month?


Murdo William Martin: My leader is not opposed to increasing the pension. My leader was the spokesman for the Liberal party when he enunciated our plan that will provide not $65 a month but a national minimum of $75 a month.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He is against it.


Murdo William Martin: It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that this process of educating, in which I am currently engaged, has come not too soon if I correctly understood the implications of the question asked by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
The scheme outlined by the Leader of the Opposition will make it possible for all Canadians to take part in a contributory pension plan geared to the growth in our economy. It will not require any addition to taxes because the plan calls for a payment of benefits out of contributions that will grow during the first ten years, enabling the giving of pensions in larger amounts, proportionate to the earnings of the contributor. Added to the existing federal old age pension this plan will establish a new national minimum of $75 a month for a retired person at age 70 and $140 for a married couple. Even the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm will some day, when he grows older, qualify under this plan introduced by the Liberal party.
The minimum for retired people aged 70 or over makes provision for those who have not had the opportunity to contribute under the Liberal plan. The size of pensions will rise year by year, as people retire after contributing to the new plan. Full pension rates-a good proportion of most people's earnings- will be reached in ten years. These pensions will be available from age 65.
We can speak with some authority in this matter because it was Liberal governments that introduced the universal old age pension and, in co-operation with the provinces, made old age assistance available to people between 65 and 70 who are in need.
Our plan is a supplement to private saving. The minister spoke of private saving and private pension plans. While many companies now have good pension schemes, the majority of the working population is not covered by them. There are other problems as well. While younger people can build up good pensions by the time they retire, new private plans cannot enable older workers to do so at contribution rates they can afford. Also, workers
Old Age Security Act
who lose or change their jobs are liable to lose pension rights. This is a serious obstacle to people moving between jobs and is therefore bad for economic efficiency as well as for the individual. Such problems, in the context of our modern industrial society, must be met and dealt with. As people live longer, the assurance of an adequate income during retirement becomes more and more important to us all.
I want the Minister of National Health and Welfare to follow these details and to contrast them with the very nebulous and uncoordinated plan which he so vaguely enunciated today, perhaps because it is vague. I want him to consider why it was not possible, when he had access to the same information in the Clark report to which we had access, to bring forward at this time, if not in 1959 when it should have been brought forward, a contributory scheme based on that in the United States and so strongly advocated by the Prime Minister.
When our plan is in full operation the pension each person gets will be related to what he has contributed. That is why I said it does not involve any rise in taxes. As in most private plans, contributions will be made by wage and salary earners and also by employers on their behalf. When a man changes his job his full pension rights will move with him. Contributions will be a small percentage of earnings. People who are self-employed may join the plan, which will be well worth while for most of them. Everyone will be able to choose between taking the pension at age 65 or waiting and taking a larger pension at age 70.
Today the minister spoke about this projected plan of his as one providing an opportunity for people to begin to take pensions at age 62. That is the provision in the United States. He did not explain how that would be done, nor did he mention what I pointed out last night, namely that our old age assistance scheme provides for old age assistance pensions to widows and unmarried women at age 60. No comment was made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on this feature. He seemed to be overly obsessed with our contributory scheme and to have overlooked some of the other incidental results.
There is another feature of our plan that the minister has failed to note. He will be bringing in shortly a resolution to provide for an increase in the basic amount of disability pensions. He said nothing about what this scheme of ours will do in regard to disability pensions. He of course said nothing about the fact that it was a Liberal government under

Old Age Security Act
Mr. St. Laurent that brought in disability pensions and provided assistance to over 60,000 individuals in this country, a program that was never promised to the Canadian people-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member not think that it would be more proper to debate disability pensions when that resolution is before the house? After all, the matter under consideration is old age pensions. I have certainly not restricted the hon. member, but I think he is going beyond the scope of the matter under consideration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The plan I am outlining is part of this proposed plan. It is a matter referred to by the minister. We are providing for earlier pensions to be made available to anyone who is disabled before reaching retirement age under the countribu-tory plan.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, but the only things that would be relevant in the plan the hon. member is discussing are the matters that relate to old age pension.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am dealing with the speech of the Minister of National Health and Welfare who discussed our countributory plan and who made misstatements about it. I am now putting the plan properly on record.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member cannot be replying to the minister with respect to disability pensions, as he complained that the minister did not mention them and then proceeded to do so himself. 1 think the hon. member should come back to the matter that is under consideration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of your observations, Mr. Speaker, I agree that technically that may be the case. But since our contributory plan was discussed and since the minister overlooked mentioning one important feature of it, I thought I was within my rights, as I strongly believe I am. However, I will not continue, as I think the important point has been made and I hope it will be observed by the minister.
Both contributions and pension benefits will apply only up to a moderate level of earnings. The Liberal plan will not operate to benefit rich people who do not need government action. It will not discourage private pension plans or other saving for retirement by those who can afford more. There will be good reason for continued saving in all forms. Among people with moderate incomes there will be a particular incentive to organize private pension plans for earlier retirement.
Then we go on in this plan to provide, as I indicated earlier, assistance to those between the ages of 65 and 69. Those are the features

of this plan which the minister in his criticism has failed to underline. He failed clearly to establish that we were providing a national pension plan to which the individual would contribute according to his earnings. He failed to point out that from the fund that would be created there would be paid a minimum supplementary pension of $20 a month at age 70, making the total federal pension $75 a month for a single person and $140 for a married couple. He failed to point out that, in co-operation with the provinces, this plan indicated we were ready to increase old age assistance not to $65, as is proposed by the government, but to $75 a month, and that we were prepared to make old age assistance available to unmarried women and widows at age 60; and that we were prepared to pay supplementary old age assistance of $20 a month to a married woman at age 70 and over in cases where the $140 a month pension available to a married couple left them in need of further assistance.
He failed to point out that under our scheme which he criticized it was proposed to pay to those retiring after contributing to the fund, pensions which would rise during a 10-year transition period until they equalled a good proportion of the earnings of each man or woman while working. He did not say that the individual would be enabled to choose between a pension at age 65 or a larger pension at 70. He failed to point out that we would provide pension benefits to those who were disabled and to widows and to orphans.
I withdraw that statement. He did mention that our scheme dealt with widows, survivors and dependants, but he sought to establish that, because of that fact, the present section 94A of the British North America Act created a situation which meant that this parliament was not competent to provide for such a scheme.
With regard to that problem I can only repeat what I said yesterday and now say in the presence of the Minister of Justice. I can very well understand that there might be some difference of opinion and judgment as to whether all parts of this contributory scheme put forward by the Liberal party are in compliance with our constitutional provisions. I can only say, as I established yesterday, that responsible legal opinion in this country, the opinion of those we have consulted, is that there can be no question of the constitutionality of the simple pension on a contributory basis following the United States pattern; and that under the aspect theory there can be no doubt about the constitutionality of pensions to survivors or to dependants. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), who may or may not speak on this matter,

knows, of course, the cases of Hodge v. the Queen, Tennant v. the Union Bank, Grand Trunk Railway v. Canada, Proprietory Articles Trade Association v. Attorney General for Canada and others, all of which deal with the aspect theory and which hold that subjects which in one aspect or for one purpose may fall within section 92 may in another aspect or for another purpose fall within section 91 of the British North America Act.
But having said this I admit that there may be room for a difference of opinion. If it is argued by the law officers of the crown that this scheme is outside our competence I am sure the government cannot take the position that to provide a pension for an individual is unconstitutional. I have before me the letter of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) addressed to the provinces on the 17th of January, and in the fourth paragraph the Prime Minister says:
The law officers of the crown advise me that this authority would permit parliament to enact a contributory, graduated old age pension plan but would not permit the inclusion of benefits payable under certain circumstances to widows and children, nor to contributors who become disabled before they are old.
The Prime Minister says there clearly and unmistakably that at least one aspect of this project is constitutional. It is, he says, within our constitutional competence "to enact a contributory, graduated old age pension plan", apart altogether from the benefits to survivors, dependants and disabled people.
I simply ask the Prime Minister this question on the basis of this statement in his letter. If it is clear that there is no doubt about the constitutionality in this one particular, what excuse can the government offer now for not having proceeded at least with regard to that aspect of the problem under section 94A of the British North America Act. If there is a valid reason for not proceeding with regard to that one particular then I say to the government, what excuse can it possibly offer for telling us only in the month of February, 1962, that there is this constitutional impediment? Why could we not have been told that last September? Why were we not told it last July when we were discussing pensions under estimates of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and when I outlined the kind of scheme envisaged by the Liberal party at the national Liberal convention in 1958? Why were we not told in 1959? Why were we not told in 1958 by the Prime Minister who said, "We are going to have a study made of this whole business and then we are going to enact legislation in this parliament based on the social security system in the United States"?
Old Age Security Act
The government will not be able to hide behind this constitutional impediment, if such exists. It has had all the time in the world to consult with the provinces, all the time in the world to bring forward an amendment. The only reason I can possibly see why they have not taken this step is that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) is still in charge of the government and is still the boss. He is not the prime minister but because of his well known views about contributory pensions he was able to cause the government to postpone month after month, year after year, something that the Prime Minister said in 1958 we were going to get at the earliest possible moment once his government came into being.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) is here today. I ask him to consider whether a plan involving contributions by employers, employees and self-employed to a national fund for the purpose of providing a simple pension is not within our constitutional rights, whether such a plan providing for the payment of benefits at 65 or 70, ultimately scaled to contributions, is not within our constitutional rights. I ask him to tell us what constitutional difficulty arises out of a provision for an interim increase and adjustment of existing old age pensions and, in co-operation with the provinces, the provision of plans for old age assistance. What constitutional difficulty is there with regard to the payment of benefits to persons permanently disabled and prevented from working until retirement age? If there is one, why were we not told that three years ago?
So I say, Mr. Speaker, with full confidence in what I am saying, that we in the Liberal party in bringing forward this plan have taken a responsible step, a step that will not only provide more than $65 a month as envisaged by this bill, which we support, but will provide a national minimum of $75 and will provide increasing amounts to Canadian citizens in the years to come after the fund has gone through a period of maturity.
I live in the city of Windsor, on the Canada-United States border. The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Halpenny) from London lives not far away. Those of us in that area are familiar with the United States plan. We see individuals living in Windsor who have worked in Detroit and are drawing pensions as high as $300 a month. This is the kind of plan which the Liberal party is proposing, a plan that does not add one cent to the obligations of the government of Canada or to the Canadian taxpayer as such, a plan that is paid for out of contributions by the

Old Age Security Act
beneficiaries of the plan. Some may say, why did you not bring that plan forward when you were in office?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Is the employer not going to make a contribution under your plan?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course he is. [ thank my hon. friend for mentioning that.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Then it is not going to be a payroll tax?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I said it would be subject to a payroll deduction plan just as hospital insurance is. There is no other way.


Jay Waldo Monteith: And the employer is also going to pay something.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I remember when we brought in the hospital insurance act in this house and the criticisms that were made when we suggested that a payroll deduction scheme was going to apply to a portion of those in the Canadian community who had made possible this hospital insurance scheme. I remember the forebodings in the minds of the social-minded members of the Conservative party at that time. I well remember that. Today the hospital insurance legislation introduced in this house in 1957 by the Liberal government and supported now by the ten provinces has resulted in a hospital insurance scheme that has won the commendation of almost 100 per cent of the Canadian people.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Implemented by the Conservatives.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not denying that my hon. friend did something. My hon. friend and his colleagues became the government, of course, and he carried out the work that had been laid before him.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Made possible because of an amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But when my hon. friend talks about being the author of hospital insurance-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Made possible by an amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -I think of Bonar Law, Lloyd George and Mr. Churchill and the 1910 hospital insurance plan in Great Britain, and I find that the hon. gentleman reminds me more and more of these three gentlemen. I say that before many months are out, when we get over there and form the government and bring in a contributory pension scheme, I have no doubt that our scheme will commend itself to the Canadian people

just as the hospital insurance plan has. I know that hon. gentlemen regret that I have taken longer than usual-


Mr. Starr:: No, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -to discuss this very important plan.
Mr. Pallet!: Not on this side; maybe on that side they do.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did it because the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) paid such attention yesterday to our plan that I thought the least I could do, when a minister was generous enough, in the introduction of his own scheme, to speak more about the Liberal party plan than his own, was to emulate him. Then, today, when he embarked upon a further elucidation and by implication gave this plan his partial imprimatur, I thought the least I could do was to elaborate on some of the details of our plan.
Let me remind the minister that this plan provides, not what is going to be provided in this bill, a pension of $65 basic, but a national minimum of $75. This plan was conceived in a responsible way. It has not brought on it the condemnation that we were irresponsible financially in the way in which we conceived and projected it; that is the situation.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are not sincere.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says I am not sincere. My hon. friend, whose friendship in this house I enjoy suggests I am not sincere. I am not going to ask him to withdraw. I will place my record of public life against his. Let the hon. gentleman look over the record of Hansard from my very first days in this house, and he will find evidence of my concern for the development of social welfare in this country. Let my hon. friend come down to my constituency and tell the people in that constituency what he has just said in this house. If he does, I assure my hon. friend I will have to escort him out of the gates of the city to see him safely away.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we support this bill as an amendment to an act which we introduced. We say that the amount provided is inadequate. We support the bill also because of our own view that there should be at this time, responsibly conceived and administered, a national minimum pension based on not less than $75. We support this plan and we are urging the government, even at this late date, to remind itself of the promises that it made. We ask the minister to recall the long hours of study he made of the Clark report, the long hours at night, during the mornings and over the week ends. I ask him now to show his faith in the Canadian people, to

show that he believes in commitments made by political parties to the Canadian people.
I ask him even at this late date to take steps that will result in the establishment in this country of a scheme such as the Liberal party introduced.
If that is not satisfactory, let him introduce a scheme modelled on his own plan, embodying the principle of contribution established in the United States. I terminate what I have to say, Mr. Speaker, by observing that the Liberal party, which was responsible for the establishment of old age pensions, for old age assistance, for blindness allowances, for disability pensions, for the hospital insurance act, for health grants and for family allowances, is able now to add one other development to its program of social welfare in this country. We are now providing a plan that would enable our senior citizens, in their period of retirement, in this complicated industrial society in which we live, where automation is having a greater and greater impact, to live without fear of insecurity. We ask the house to accept our plan, as one that goes to the root of the problem, as one that will resolve it, in so far as by enactment we can resolve this particular aspect of this social problem. I do so with confidence in the belief that we have put forward a responsible and constructive proposal. I ask the government, even at this late date, to implement the promise it made to this house and to the Canadian people.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to assure you and this house that it is not my intention to go on like a broken phonograph record for the full extent of my time. We are dealing today with the second reading of Bill No. C-54, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. This bill has three simple sections. The first section of the bill reads:
All that portion of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Old Age Security Act immediately preceding paragraph (a) thereof is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"3 (1) Subject to the provisions of this act and the regulations, a monthly pension of sixty five dollars may be paid in respect of every person who-"
Section 2 reads:
This act shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of February, 1962.
The explanatory note covers the situation very well and it says that the purpose of the amendment is to increase the pension from $55 a month to $65 a month. Last night we listened with great interest to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) make a speech Which lasted the full extent of his time. In fact, we listened to it twice, and on both occasions he used all his time. Today, we heard
Old Age Security Act
this speech again. I think he almost accomplished the impossible today by speaking to the full extent of his time when he had unlimited time.
I was quite surprised also, Mr. Speaker, to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith), both last night and again today, devote the biggest part of his time to a measure that is not before us. In fact, we are wondering if and when it will be before us. I should like to give a warning to the minister. He has not told us too much about this contributory, so-called portable, pension plan that was forecast in the speech from the throne. First last night and then again today a little more information is leaking out about the plan the government seems to have in mind. Every time a little information leaks out it tarnishes the lovely picture that was painted in the throne speech. This reveals once more the great fault of this government, that the results never live up to the advance notices in so far as their legislative program is concerned. We always get a grand picture first, and then when the legislation is introduced cracks appear in the picture. It is something like a windshield. You get a little stone chip and the first thing you know the cracks work their way across the front of the windshield. The same situation applies to the record of the government with regard to legislation.
If I heard the minister correctly today, this plan that they have in mind to present at some future date may be a contributory pension plan but I do not believe there is any relationship to a portable pension plan. I thought the minister mentioned something to the effect that industrial workers who now have a pension plan would not be eligible to join this plan. They would not qualify. I should like to remind the minister that this is not going to solve some of the problems we have in this country today pertaining to pension plans.
Will this sort of scheme solve the problem of the employee who may be tied to a certain job because of his pension plan, even though he might be better suited to another job? Will this scheme, which the government has in mind, solve the problem of the employee who is 40 or 45 years of age? One of the greatest problems facing us today is what we are going to do with older employees. They are too old to work but not old enough to pension off. Will the scheme which the minister envisages make allowance for these problems or are we going to get another half-baked measure that will do as much to confound the problems as to solve them? My suggestion and advice to the government is

Old Age Security Act
to get past this measure before too many more cracks appear in the rosy picture painted in the speech from the throne.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We
have listened at some length and with, I think, commendable patience to the list of exaggerations placed on the record here this afternoon by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) in the course of which, as was pointed out by Your Honour, he paid very little attention to the bill actually before the house.
Indeed I wondered during the course of his address when he was going to claim, for the Liberal party, credit for having invented gunpowder, because he did not stop very far short of that. Perhaps some of us might have had it in our minds that gunpowder could be put to fairly effective use in the light of what we were listening to then.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That would be capital murder.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As an example of the exaggeration indulged in by the hon. gentleman I would mention one case. In the course of his remarks he told us, carried away as usual by his own enthusiasm, that as a resident of Windsor he was aware that people living in that city and working in Detroit received $300 a month under the old age system prevailing there. My information is that the maximum family payment for all benefits under that scheme is $254 a month.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And that the single retired person gets a maximum of $127 a month.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is absolutely wrong.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is my information and I think it is probably more accurate than the Martin bureau of statistics of which we have had previous experience.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You do not know what you are talking about.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is my information.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Wrong again.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The other part of the hon. member's speech which impressed me as being so typical of the way he deals, or attempts to deal with serious subjects, was his return to the old system of argument ad hominem. Not being able to make a sound case on the merits, my hon. friend shows a regrettable tendency to get into personalities. On this occasion, not being able to attack my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith), for the very sound proposals he has laid before the house, the 
hon. member for Essex East reached out wildly to make an exaggerated attack upon my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). The nature of that attack was again typical of the tactics of the hon. gentleman.
He laid before us a fantasy of the reasons why this government has not, up to the moment, brought in the full scale, far reaching, contributory social security scheme which we have forecast, by saying the Minister of Finance was opposed to it. What source of reference did he find? What sort of facts did he find as the basis for such an absurd argument? He went back to a committee report of 1951. He referred-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I went back to Hansard.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He referred to the statements made about that committee report by the Minister of Finance in which the Minister of Finance-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order. I did not refer to what the Minister of Finance said in the committee. I referred to what the Minister of Finance said in this house, in debate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend is so excited he is not able to hear accurately, because that is precisely what I said. I said that in his fantastic statement the hon. member for Essex East referred to what the Minister of Finance had said about a committee report in 1951, a committee of which the Minister of Finance had been a member, a committee which, as I recall it, brought in a unanimous report, or at least was unanimous in its belief at that time that the old age pension system of Canada should not be based upon the system in the United States. As the hon. member for Essex East said yesterday, that was a view which was reinforced by the government of that time in the legislation it brought forward.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member for Essex East was a member of the government at that time. You, sir, will recall the little lecture he read us about cabinet solidarity, a subject matter upon which I regret my hon. friend is one of the least qualified lecturers. But, if cabinet solidarity be the doctrine, as it is, my hon. friend at that time also reflected the view that our social security legislation at that time should not be based upon the United States system. So, the argument which my hon. friend sought to make is revealed as being a complete absurdity.
Then my hon. friend went on to ask why this government does not do certain things at this time. He asks why do we not bring in a scheme along the lines of that put forward

by his party. I shall tell the hon. member Why we do not. It is because the government does not wish to bring in a half-baked social security scheme. We are determined, at the first possible opportunity, to bring in a comprehensive, contributory social security scheme based on the plans which my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, has outlined. Now, to bring that scheme into effect requires certain constitutional amendment and so, in the meantime, we are taking care of the old, the blind and the disabled by these interim measures, with the increases which are before the house in this bill and which will be before the house in the three other bills sponsored by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is simply because we wish to bring in a really comprehensive and satisfactory social security scheme that we are taking these interim measures until such time as we can, under an appropriate amendment to the constitution, introduce a scheme which would show the proposals made by the Liberal party to be unsound and far short of what the Canadian people require.
As Mr. Speaker is about to call it five o'clock, I shall resume at eight o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed in today's order paper, namely, private bills and public bills. There being no private bills, the house will proceed with public bills.



INTEREST ACT


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-6 to amend the Interest Act (finance charges).
He said: The purpose of this bill is to provide some protection for the purchaser of credit against the practice which has become so widespread, namely the neglect to outline the cost of servicing that credit, and the cost of carrying it, in respect to the normal accepted procedure in so far as interest is concerned. Should this bill be accepted by the house, and become law, it would provide a penalty for failure to outline total charges, and their percentage relation to the principal involved. In addition to that penalty, failure to act in accordance with the bill would cancel the rights of the lender to any interest charges on such a contract.
Some hon. members may say that these are drastic penalties, but I maintain they are needed if the present situation is to be corrected. Business practice in Canada has accepted the practice of displaying price tags. Indeed, that is one of the foundations of competitive trade. Our society has accepted the
Interest Act
principle that the customer is entitled to know the price of his purchase. The practice has been zealously guarded by our governments, particularly, in regard to financial transactions. Both the Bank Act and Interest Act set out the limits within which interest may be charged. Promissory notes carry the rate of interest on their face, prominently displayed. Certain types of bonds are required to show in express terms the interest they will yield. The reason for this practice has been that these requirements prevent misunderstandings which might place upon one or other of the parties to such a transaction a burden or obligation of which he was not fully aware. Our banking institutions have discharged their responsibilities, generally, within the confines of the Bank Act. The general rule followed by these institutions can be best described as loans for productive purposes. That left a considerable void in modern society's financial requirements. The desire of enterprising merchandisers and manufacturers to maintain volume in their production pattern has necessitated a form of credit to finance these transactions. In some cases at least the money required for this financing has been secured from banks at an agreed rate and is provided at varying rates to customers who desire to purchase goods on credit. Payroll cities have become dependant upon this type of financing. Indeed, there are many cases which could be used to illustrate the mutual advantages this system of merchandising provides for the customer and the merchant as well. Because of the monthly payroll characteristic of incomes in these cities, the practice has developed of pricing goods at so much down and so much a month for so many months, without any clear indication of the percentage costs of carrying this service. Some of the finance companies have been equally reluctant to reveal these pertinent facts in their transactions. This situation has obscured the true cost of such credit, and it is my contention the risks involved are most minute when a loan is based on knowledge of the customers security of income. This factor is to my mind one of the major reasons for the practice which has developed, quite apart from the pure encouragement that monthly payments have for merchandising purposes alone. The extent to which finance purchasing has become prevalent is the best denial of the assertion that there are great risks involved. The desire for obscurity in their transactions is motivated by the desire to continue to enjoy the present rate of return on these transactions.
The question that we must ask ourselves is, first: is the customer or purchaser of credit entitled to know in clear simple terms the

Interest Act
cost of the service he is securing? Second, is it physically possible for the merchandizer or financier to provide this information without undue effort? I believe both these questions can be answered in the affirmative. There are some people who believe that a bill of this nature should exclude any reference to mortgage loans and the like. I should like to cite an example of what has taken place in some instances in Canada during the last few years. I refer hon. members to the "Ontario Reports" and the "Ontario Weekly Notes" of June 16, 1961 pertaining to the York county court, and I should like to read part of a case described as Scott and Manor Investments Limited. It reads as follows:
Scott and his wife were the owners in February, 1958 of 75 Roebuck Drive, Scarborough. This house had been purchased by them in 1955 for $13,500 and at the time of the borrowing transaction in question there was owing upon the house about $10,000 by way of a first N.H.A. mortgage and between $500 and $600 on a second mortgage on the property.
At the time of the transaction this small second mortgage was falling due and there was a balance due in respect to the purchase of a motorcar. Scott in his affidavit asserts that he was attracted to Manor Investments by an advertisement of theirs in the public press to the effect that mortgages could be arranged without bonus. Pursuant thereto Scott attended at the office of Manor Investments and there he signed a number of documents; a mortgage agreement dated 11th February 1958, which seems to set out particulars of the application to the company for a loan which required payments of $45 monthly, for both principal and interest at 61 per cent per annum. This is signed by Scott, and in paragraph 1 it provides to pay the company an arranging commission of $125.
There is another document 20th February 1958 called collateral advantage bonus agreement. This provides for a mortgage loan of $3,200, and interest is stated to be at 12 per cent repayable $45 including principal and interest; and it states:
We W. J. Scott and H. Scott further agree that we will accept the sum of $2,500 as the net proceeds due under the said mortgage; the balance of $700 being a bonus to Manor Investments.
Then there is a mortgage dated 20th February 1958, which is for $3,200 which bears interest at 12 per cent with monthly payments of $45 including both principal and interest and which states that the interest shall be computed half yearly not in advance, on the 17th days of August and February in each year after the date of the mortgage. The mortgage was for three years to fall due 17th February 1961.
Now this mortgage was signed by the Scotts and they received by way of the proceeds of this transaction, less legal fees and disbursements and an inspection fee, the sum of $2,375 which money was used to pay off the current indebtedness of the borrowers on the car and on the existing second mortgage as above stated. At that time a statement was issued dated the 27th February, 1958, by Manor Investments showing the amount of the loan $3,200, the bonus stated to be "Cost-precalculated risk $700", and "arranging commission $125", and then the other items of disbursements,
In this case the borrower actually received only $2,375. When we come to assess the interest on this loan we find the borrowers were charged a bonus of $700, an arranging fee of

$125 and interest on $3,200 over a three-year period at 12 per cent, which amounted to $1,152 or a total, in all, of $1,977. This amounts to an interest of $659 per year on an average, which works out to something over 27.5 per cent. The magistrate charged with deciding this case said it would be somewhat less in the following two years.
I do not think I need to read any further in this connection. This is just one case which indicates what can take place as things are today. There are further cases mentioned in the reports I have here but I do not wish to take up the time of the committee by reading more than I have in this regard.
Before resuming my seat I shall read the contents of the bill so it will appear in the record for those who wish to examine it. It offers an amendment to the Interest Act by adding section 16, amending sections 17 and 18. The bill reads as follows:
1. The Interest Act is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 15 thereof, the following section: "Finance Charges".
16.	In sections 17 and 18,
(a)	"credit debt" is the debt that is the consideration in whole or in part under any executory contract whatsoever for an interest in real or personal property, or for a service, or for both interest and service; and
(b)	"finance charge" means any and every debt whatsoever stipulated for or exacted on any credit debt and includes, but without restricting the generality of the foregoing, interest, brokerage fees and charges, bonus, service charge, subscription, dues, discount, commission, or premium.
17.	Every person who carries on the business of extending credit, either directly or as a service in the course of another business, and in the course of that business extends credit, on which finance charges are stipulated for or exacted, to another person is guilty of an offence unless, before credit is so extended, he furnishes that other person an express written statement of
(a)	the total amount of the finance charges to be chargeable to that other person on the credit so extended; and
(b)	the ' amount of the credit and the rate of percentage which the finance charges bear to that amount, computed annually and not in advance.
Perhaps this is a good opportunity to say that the purpose of this bill is to make a credit financier criminally liable when he does not, before the credit transaction, clearly disclose in writing to the debtor the cost of the. credit calculated as a total dollar amount and as a yearly percentage of the credit amount to be granted. This criminal liability attaches only to the individual or company granting the credit in the original instance and in the course of a business or as ancillary to the operation of another business.
The liability does not attach to the person who grants credit, but not as a business; nor does the liability attach to the person

who takes over the credit transaction, after it legally exists and is operating, from the original creditor.
However, failure by the original creditor to make full disclosure results also in a civil penalty to the original creditor in that the finance charges, including interest, are null and void and uncollectable by way of contract debt, damages under a bond, seizure and sale, repossession or any other right and remedy.
As a consequence, an assignment of the original creditor's rights and remedies only assigns a nullity in so far as the finance charges are concerned. The finance charges only survive for the benefit of the debtor who has paid them, in whole or in part; in such case, he may recover them by legal action or by set-off against any unpaid principal.
There may be those who will say this bill is unconstitutional. I would refer them to section 91 of the British North America Act and to subsections 18 dealing with bills of exchange and promissory notes, 19 dealing with interest and 27 dealing with the jurisdiction in criminal law. I believe it is clearly established under this provision that a bill of this nature may emanate from the federal jurisdiction.
I shall say nothing more and in taking my seat I commend to hon. members of the house the bill I have introduced. I believe the principle of this measure is a good one and I remind the house that it is the principle of the bill that is at stake at this time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to indicate support for Bill No. C-6. For a number of years I have taken an interest in this general subject and am on record many times as being in favour of the type of action contemplated by this measure.
In its terms this bill provides that a company or firm extending credit or arrangements for instalment purchasing in relation to which a service charge is levied shall set out the amount of finance charges and state the rate or the percentage of the original cost represented by these charges.
This is a simple, straightforward bill that should commend itself to the house. No legitimate firm has anything to fear from the contents of the bill. It merely provides that when a company makes a service charge, such charge shall be clearly stated when the transaction takes place.
This session we are operating under a different set of rules with respect to private and public bills. Only an hour is provided for the discussion of any measure when it is first put forward. With the large number of bills on
Interest Act
the order paper, to say nothing of the likely length of this session, there is only a remote chance that this bill will again come before us for second reading. I therefore express the hope that before six o'clock the house will take a vote so we may have an expression of the opinion of hon. members on this worth-while measure.
The sponsor of this bill is a Conservative member. I am certain the bill will win a measure of support within the Conservative party. I hope it will win general support but I have no knowledge of that.
We in this group are in favour of the bill. One not identical but similar in some respects has again this year been introduced in the Senate by Senator Croll, a well known Liberal senator, who introduced a similar bill in the Senate last year. It received the attention of the Senate and on May 23 came to a vote. I am sorry to say the bill was defeated.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understand it is not in accordance with our rules to refer to the proceedings in the other place.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not referring to contemporary proceedings in the Senate. This is a matter of history. The record indicates that last year the measure was defeated in the other place by a vote of 35 to 26. Although I am sorry to say the measure was turned down, the vote indicates considerable support for this proposal in the other place.
This is another example of a private member bringing forward a measure here or in the other place that is initially turned down. However, it sometimes happens that through similar measures being brought forward periodically the general principle wins support and in time becomes law.
I regret that this house does not more frequently take the opportunity of having a vote on second reading of public bills. I think it is good to have votes and indicate our position. The sponsor of this bill, I am sure, would be the first to agree that if the measure passed second reading today it would still be a long way from being the law of the land. Many things could happen. For instance, it could be defeated in committee. It could be defeated on third reading. It could be caught in the dissolution at the end of this week or at some other stage. It might get rejection in the other place. Hence if it passes today, this would merely be the first hurdle. However, it would be an important hurdle, Mr. Speaker, and it would demonstrate to the country that at least a majority of the members of parliament feel it is time that firms in the business of making loans or providing instalment credit did the thing which I suggest is fair, aboveboard and frank, namely inform the

Interest Act
person who is obtaining this credit of the total finance charges and of the interest rate involved.
This measure has nothing to do with the kind of measure that I have been advocating so often with regard to the setting of a ceiling. If a ceiling were set and if the law were enforced, protection like this would not be as necessary. It might be desirable but it certainly would not be as necessary. All this measure does is to say that if a business firm is providing a service by way of loan or by way of instalment credit it should do the fair and straightforward thing, should tell the customer the interest charge being levied and should set it out in writing in the contract.
I think this is the kind of proposal that would get the support of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) who is a distinguished member of this house and has had a long experience in the business field. While I know that he has disagreed with me in times gone by over some of the harsh things I have said about certain business firms in the credit field, I believe he will support the suggestion contained in this measure, namely that companies shall set out the interest and carrying charges that are being levied.
We have this particular measure, the measure before the other place, and Bill No. C-23 in my name having to do with advertising by small loans companies which, if passed and if it became law, would require that in any advertising that is done the interest be set out. In these measures we are dealing with this general problem. I must say that these propositions have received a great deal of attention across this country from time to time and in my judgment have a very substantial measure of support amongst the public and amongst ordinary financial institutions, and very frequently have the support of credit unions and the credit union central organization. The credit union is doing a worth-while service at what is usually a very low interest rate. I feel that it is only proper and fair that all companies, including credit unions, should set forth the interest rates that are being charged in any of the transactions that may be made. Under the circumstances prevailing, having regard to the history of support for this measure and for other similar measures we have had in the past, I believe that this afternoon this measure can be dealt with on a non-political and nonpartisan basis and that it is the kind of measure that should command general support from all parties in this house. (Translation):


Mr. J. J. Martel (Chapleau):: 
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on Bill No. C-6, to amend the Interest Act, I should like to say at the outset that I am much in favour of what is spelled out in this amendment. As I understand the purpose of the bill, it is to make a credit financier criminally liable when he does not, before the credit transaction, clearly disclose in writing to the debtor the cost of the credit calculated as a total dollar amount and as a yearly percentage of the credit amount to be granted.
It is my understanding that if the bill comes into force it will mean that any company that sells to a person on credit or time payments must disclose what the interest charges will be when the note comes due. I must congratulate the hon. member for Rosthem (Mr. Nasserden) on bringing in this bill, and I am sure it will meet with the approval of many people who have had anything to do with credit financiers or the purchasing of goods on time payments.
This does not mean that many credit financiers are not sincere in the transactions in which they are involved. The bill will actually apply to the unscrupulous credit financiers who may take advantage of a person who is not very familiar with financial transactions and is surprised in the end at the rate of interest when he has to pay his bill.
I must say that times have changed from what they were many years ago. There are many people in our country today who are on salaries and are paid only once a month. They have to go to a credit financier because they wish to buy something for which they are not able to pay cash at the time. As a result they must sign a note and many of them are not familiar with interest charges. That is why I am very much in favour of this bill to amend the act. Those people who sign credit notes will then be in a position to know what they have to pay when they buy something on time payments or what they will have to pay if by reason of unforeseeable circumstances they cannot make the payments as set out in the note.
I am sure that many people have been wanting such an amendment for years. Since I came to the House of Commons, bills or motions to this effect have been introduced from time to time in which it has been provided that credit financiers must disclose

Interest Act
the rate of interest. I would be very much disappointed if the bill did not reach the stage where it could be discussed in the committee to which such bills usually go, and I would hope that a vote would be taken on the bill before six o'clock.
I am sure that many hon. members will be pleased to give their approval to the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Rosthern. On other occasions I have spoken in the house on similar bills. I would be the last one to change the views I have expressed before and I should like to see this bill become legislation in the very near future.


Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us this afternoon places before hon. members a very worthy principle, but I must point out that there are certain aspects of it with regard to which it would not be practical so far as its application is concerned. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, that in so far as this measure relates to the disclosure of cost and the rate of interest charged, I have no quarrel with it. There is one aspect of this bill which I do not think is practical, and I intend to indicate how this matter was dealt with in a more practical manner in the statutes of Ontario.
First of all, we want to make this a workable instrument; we do not want to defeat the purpose of the bill. There are a number of problems which have not yet been settled. The first one is just how far we can extend the meaning of interest to bring it within the jurisdiction of the federal government. It is quite true that under the constitution the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with interest. However, when you start adding certain charges to the definition of interest, then you introduce a question as to whether or not those charges fall within the property and civil rights provision. This question was raised in the other place during the introduction of a measure by Senator Croll. I do not believe the question has been resolved.
Another difficulty is the inclusion of all persons in the wording of a section, so that the bill does not become discriminatory. If this measure is to be applied fairly it must cover all persons and not just those who are normally in the business of lending money. If you read the definition as it is here, it does include those who are directly involved in the business of lending money or indirectly involved in lending money in connection with another business. However, the definition does not include those persons who have acquired a certain amount of wealth and who enter the mortgage field, quite apart

from their regular business. Those persons dealing in second mortgages should be included because that is a field about which there has been a great deal of complaint.
This problem, as it relates to mortgages in the province of Ontario, was dealt with in chapter 67 of the statutes of 1960, when the mortgage brokers registration act was passed. This act provides that people dealing in mortgages should be registered and should comply with the terms of the act. Under regulation 46, made under this act which deals with the disclosure of information, we find that this type of information is required, as set out in section 4:
Subsection 1
Every registered broker shall keep and maintain a record showing,
(a)	The repayment terms of each mortgage;
(b)	The total amount actually paid or to be paid to the mortgagor on each mortgage;
(c)	The fees, expenses, costs and other charges required to be borne by the mortgagor in respect of each mortgage transaction;
(d)	The particulars of any related agreement.
Subsection 2 reads:
Every registered broker shall deliver to the mortgagor the information required by subsection 1 on a form approved by the superintendent and shall obtain proof of delivery.
Now, if this can be done in respect of mortgages it can be done in respect to other types of loans and credits. My big quarrel with the present measure is with section 17 (b) which reads:
(b) the amount of the credit and the rate or percentage which the finance charges bear to that amount, computed annually and not in advance.
My complaint is that this is a rather vague provision. The way in which interest might be computed is rather difficult. If a mortgage is discounted the interest might be set out at 6 per cent, but it will actually be more. I feel that when you are creating a criminal offence and putting the responsibility on a person to set out the correct information, you must make the terms of the measure simple so that all people can understand them. If you do not do that, people might be convicted of a criminal offence when, in fact, they would not be sure how the charges should be com-1-puted in accordance with the act. I do not believe it is necessary for a person to know the percentage which the finance charges bear to the loan. This is not the important thing. The important thing for him to know is how much he has to pay in dollars and cents for this loan or the mortgage which he may receive.	: j)
One practical difficulty which may be encountered in connection with mortgages may be where the mortgage term is five years and

it is amortized over a period of 15 years. Tiiese charges would have to be based on the five-year period because the mortgage is said to be for a five-year period. The mortgage rhight contain the privilege of renewal and if it were renewed for a period of 10 years, then the interest calculated on the 10-year period would be different from the interest calculated on the five-year period. These are some of the practical difficulties which might be experienced in the application of this bill.
As X say, I believe this is a principle which should be studied and applied, perhaps in the same manner as it has been applied in Ontario in respect of mortgages. No matter how we might spell these things out, how we might deal with these situations, there are always those who will try to get around the law. I have in my hands some papers relating to a situation in which the Citizens Finance Company made a loan to an elderly couple. The terms were clearly set out. There was an added feature in that if they paid a premium the loan would be insured so that if the husband passed away the loan would be paid. On the basis of this provision, they paid their premium quite satisfied that they had a good loan. Unfortunately, a month ago the husband died. Now the company claims a mistake was made and the insurance policy should not have been issued because the man was too old at the time. They accepted the premiums, however. Now they are trying to entice the widow to go in and accept a receipt for the amount of the premium and release the company. Of course, having done that she would then be responsible for the loan.
This is the type of thing we have to eradicate and make sure that the finance companies who operate in this country adhere to a higher standard of ethics. This bill, Mr. Speaker, and other bills that have come before this house continually in relation to this subject point out the need for revamping the Interest Act, the Small Loans Act, and so on, but only after a careful study. I would suggest that the proper manner in which this study could be carried out would be under order in council PwC. 1961-1484, under which the royal commission was set up to study the financial system in Canada, which includes the banks and other institutions. Under its terms the commissioners by virtue of part I of the Inquiries Act may enquire into and report upon the structure and methods of operation of the Canadian finance system, including the banking and monetary system, and the institutions apd processes involved in the flow of funds through the capital market. Section B(2) of
Interest Act
the] order in council says the commission may inquire into the Bank of Canada Act,, the Quebec Savings Bank Act-;and other relevant federal legislation.	.
I would be happier had the terms of reference been broadened to spell out and include study of the Interest Act and the Small Loans Act. However, I think the terms are broad enough and I hope the commission, which is to be headed by Chief Justice Porter, will take under advisement and study all these acts to ensure that we do have a co-ordinated interest act and co-ordinated regulations affecting small loan companies throughout the country. There are so many instances of divided jurisdiction that unless we have coordination between the federal and provincial authorities we shall not have effective control.
In closing I strongly urge that this whole matter, which has been brought before the house so many times, be brought to the attention of the commissioners for their care and study.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonion-Slraihcona):: The bill before us today has several aspects which I am sure will commend it very highly to the whole house, but at the outset I would like to say that I have a rather serious question in my mind about its constitutionality.
Not so many years ago a bill was presented in the Alberta legislature, a bill which did not proceed past first reading, but which occasioned many finance companies to seek legal advice as to whether it came within the legislative responsibility of the province. As I recall it, many opinions were given to the effect that it was a provincial responsibility. That bill was not identical to the one we are . dealing with today, but it was essentially the same, having to do with the publication of information. However, before dealing further with that point there are one or two other observations I should make.
First, in talking on this bill and on bills such as the Interest Act and Small Loans Act, the practice has arisen of illustrating points by reference to particularly bad cases of harsh treatment by finance companies and other institutions. I myself have done so on occasion, and in one particular instance it was pointed out to me that perhaps I had not been exactly fair. I had not made it clear enough that I was not attempting to portray all the people in the finance business in a bad light.
At this point I think a word of caution is only fair. We certainly do see examples of sharp practice in this country, but I think I can afford to be fair due to the reputation

Interest Act
I earned in fighting finance companies for a number of years. None of the clients I defended will misunderstand me when I say that not all finance companies resort to that type of practice.


Mr. Benidickson:: Let us have a vote.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: There are instances where people borrow money when they should not, particularly where they have not properly investigated their chances of repaying it, where they have not had the benefit of advice on the business they are entering into as to its earning capacity, and where they have not properly understood the value of money and the necessity of repaying it. In this country there are many finance companies who honestly and earnestly sit down with prospective borrowers and try very hard to make sure they know what they are doing and know whether they have the capacity to repay on the terms they are borrowing. They want to make sure a borrower understands the terms on which he is borrowing because they understand that squeezing repayments out of a man is the worst kind of advertising for their business. I shall admit this is only part of the story but I think we are sometimes remiss in dealing with such matters. What we ought to do is protect these people from essentially bad practices, which brings me to another fundamental hesitation I have about the bill.
We live in a democracy and the strength of the democracy itself depends on the thinking capacity of each individual citizen. As life becomes more complex, as the government intrudes more upon the ordinary lives of our citizens there is (1), a growing tendency for the government to interfere and (2), a growing tendency for the citizen to ask the government for more and more help. I suggest the best sort of citizen in this country is the one who believes in standing on his own feet, who most resents government interference and who seeks the least of the government. This is the man who realizes the heritage we have, who realizes the possibilities that exist in this country for a man of ability and courage.


William Moore Benidickson: The interest payers will iknow who killed this bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour for the
consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Monteith (Perth) for the second reading of Bill No. C-54, to amend the Old Age Security Act.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Edmund Davie Fulton: The main reason I desire to intervene in this debate is to deal with the question which has been raised as to whether or not a constitutional amendment is necessary to give to the federal government authority to introduce a comprehensive contributory social security program with disability and survivor benefits.
Before coming to that specific question, however, I should like to deal briefly with some of the inaccurate statements made, in particular, by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) as to the basis of comparison between the record of the Liberal party and the record of the present government with respect to social security measures and, particularly, measures taken to look after the welfare of the senior citizens of Canada. In dealing with this subject the one inescapable fact is that the record of this government in the past four years in connection not only with social security generally but with respect to the senior citizens particularly compares most favourably with that of our predecessors.
I might point out that in just over four years this government, with the approval of parliament and the support of the people of Canada, has implemented with respect to the level of old age pensions available to our senior citizens increases of $25 a month as compared with the level in effect when we assumed office in 1957. Remembering that a $25 a month increase was added to a base of $40 a month one finds that this government is responsible for an increase of 62.5 per cent in the level of the monthly payments to the senior citizens of Canada under the Old Age Security Act.
This it is true is based perhaps on the most generous interpretation of what took place in 1957, because it will be recalled the former government had announced its intention of making an increase of six bucks a month, although they did not make this effective before they were dismissed from office in the election of June, 1957. However,

we implemented that $6 increase and immediately added $9 to it, making $15. That, together with the $10 a month provided for in the present bill introduced by my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) makes up a $25 increase which we shall have made effective since assuming office in June, 1957.
I said the figure of 62.5 per cent was based on the most generous interpretation. So let us look at it the other way. Even giving our predecessors credit for the $6 increase per month which they announced- and we would not, of course, like to deprive them of the title of the six buck boys, especially after the hon. member for Essex East admitted last night that when they proposed it he knew it was not adequate-


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We certainly would not like to deprive them of the title of the six buck boys-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister say if the proposed amount in the amendment before us is adequate?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Even allowing for the
increase-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member who has the floor has not yielded.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Even giving them credit for the increase which they said they would make but did not have the courage to introduce and make effective before they were dismissed from office-


Michael Starr: It was never intended. It was just a promise.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In just over four years we have increased the payments under the Old Age Security Act by $19 per month over the $46 for which they might claim credit. This represents an increase of 41.3 per cent in the level of payments under the act made by this government by means of measures introduced by my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare. This, I suggest, is an example of the sort of comparison that can be made to show the way in which this government, in circumstances of great economic difficulty which we inherited from our predecessors, has been able not only to arrest the trend of recession and restore the trend to one of development but at the same time to implement its pledges with respect to social security and all the other vast undertakings which were given to the Canadian people.
We find the hon. member for Essex East and the other spokesmen of the Liberal party,
Old Age Security Act
being at a loss to advance constructive criticisms against this measure and the other accompanying measures-


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are in favour
of them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -are protesting, but with rather a faint voice, about delay in introducing a comprehensive social security program. They also say that this particular measure is too little. Let us compare the record on both these points.
With respect to the question of whether it is too little, I suggest that the analysis I have just put on record furnishes a complete answer to that inept criticism. With respect to the question whether or not this or any other measure has been too long delayed, may I refer hon. members not only to the record but, indeed, to the confession made this afternoon by the hon. member for Essex East when he admitted it had taken the Liberals 38 long years before they got very far towards implementing the pledges they had made.


Michael Starr: Procrastination.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And even after those 38 years they had never brought into effect one of their basic planks, the promise of hospital insurance.


Michael Starr: They never intended to.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What was that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Bear in mind the oft repeated promise that hospital insurance would be made available to the Canadian people-you will recall, Mr. Speaker, as I recall, that this was stated to be a central plank of the Liberal social security platform-yet history shows that they were not able to get the scheme off the ground. When they were dismissed from office it was again left to my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in the present government to introduce a quite simple amendment, one that should not have been beyond the capabilities even of the hon. member for Essex East to envisage if they really intended to bring the scheme into effect. However, the hon. member for Essex East did not bring the amendment forward and it was left to my colleague in this government, by virtue of a very simple and almost obvious amendment, to bring that simple core of a social security program into effect.
On every ground then we see that the frenzied arguments and fantastic criticisms of my friend the hon. member for Essex East are but further evidence of what I referred to on an earlier occasion, that is the extraordinary mental disturbance which agitates hon. gentlemen opposite when the breath of

Old Age Security Act
an election is wafted into .their nostrite; They become greatly agitated, these hon. gentlemen who sat on this side of the house for 22 years and who have been separated from office for the brief period of four years.


Mr. Jones:: It paralyses them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We understand and forgive-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and I am sure that the Canadian people will also understand and forgive-


Mr. Kucherepa:: But remember.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -because they will appreciate the extent to which my hon. friends are beginning to learn what it is that the Canadian people need and deserve in the way of a social security program which was so long neglected by hon. gentlemen opposite. The Canadian people will realize that if the process of four years of separation from office could bring about such a healthy reformation and education process, perhaps a little longer on the opposition benches would but advance the process and be even healthier for hon. gentlemen opposite and for the country.
I said, sir, that the main purpose of my intervening in this debate was to discuss the question of the necessity for a constitution amendment in order to provide the authority for a comprehensive social security program based on a contributory system and including disability and survivors benefits.
The hon. member for Essex East said last night and repeated today that no constitutional amendment was necessary to bring in such a program. The hon. member gave a number of fanciful reasons why, in his disturbed imagination, the government had indicated to the house that it would seek a constitutional amendment first before bringing in such a program.
It is no wonder that my hon. friend is so concerned to belittle the need for a constitutional amendment for such a program. The real reason, I suggest, is that under a constitutional amendment a really comprehensive, all embracing and satisfactory scheme can be brought in, not a half-baked one like that put forward by the leader of the Liberal party and then so rapidly amended after my colleague announced the details of the interim measures that we are taking. Of course it is necessary to have a constitutional amendment to bring in a satisfactory over-all scheme of social security.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why did you not
do it three years ago?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Let me repeat the kind of scheme that we envisage as outlined by the

Prime Minister, speaking in this house on/ January 22, 1962, as reported qt page 74 of Hansard when-/he said:	[DOT] . /
In i order to complete the structure for old age pensions , it is j necessary that parliament should have the authority to enact a statutory system of old age pensions arid related survival and disability benefits that would be comparable to that under the modern British and United States legislation in the nature of benefits that could be provided.
That is the type of scheme we envisage. I continue:
At the present time parliament's authority derives from section 94A of the British North America Act which permits it to make laws in relation to old age pensions so long as they do not affect the operation of provincial laws. This constitutional authority does not permit parliament to enact a plan which would include benefits payable under specified circumstances to the widows and children of contributors or to contributors who become disabled before they are old. To extend the law in this most desirable way it would be necessary to secure constitutional authority.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In your opinion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I continue:
With this idea in mind I have written to the premiers of all the provinces asking their concurrence in an amendment to section 94A of the British North America Act. I should like to table a copy of the letter to Premier Robarts of Ontario. The text of the others is similar. If the house is willing, the letter could be appended to Hansard.
In accordance with the Prime Minister's suggestion the letter appears as an appendix to Hansard of January 22. The Prime Minister continued:
In His Excellency's speech reference was made to the desirability of the new plan taking into account private pension arrangements and the need for portability of pension rights. I should like to make it clear that pension rights under this type of national plan would be portable. On the other hand, we must contemplate private plans remaining in operation. Pension rights under them should be made portable, if necessary by the passing of either provincial or federal legislation. Our plan should take these private plans into account and should not require additional contributions by those already contributing under satisfactory private arrangements.
It will be obvious from any reasoned consideration of the extent, breadth and scope of the plan the Prime Minister there outlined, that it can be brought into effect only under the authority of an amendment to section 94A of the British North America Act. My friend the hon. member for Essex East, great constitutional authority that he is-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -in his own estimation-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you again.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -said that the 1951 amendment, section 94A in its present form, is adequate to cover the kind of scheme the Prime Minister has in mind. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman with a great show

of indignation said this afternoon that if section 94A is not adequate to do this, if it requires a constitutional amendment, why was parliament not told about this before. After all, he said, the Prime Minister has been talking about this type of scheme for a long time, since 1958 or 1959. The house will remember that the hon. member for Essex East and his colleague the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate worked themselves into a-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Lather?


Edmund Davie Fulton: -frenzy-which does not take too much work sometimes, Mr. Speaker. Then the hon. member for Essex East went on: Why were we not told all these things before? Indeed, he wanted to know why they were not told last September.
It is quite obvious that these hon. gentlemen who attempt to persuade the house and the country that they speak with authority in these matters have not even read the Clark report because they were told about the necessity for a constitutional amendment in the Clark report which was tabled in this house in March 1959.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: They did not read it.


Jay Waldo Monteith: They still have not read it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As my colleague suggests, it appears that they have not read the report but if they did read it I think one is quite at liberty to doubt whether they would have understood it.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, the information that a constitutional amendment would be required is contained in the Clark report at page 217, paragraph 2023, in a letter written on my behalf by the acting deputy attorney general of Canada to my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The last paragraph of that opinion was reproduced in the Clark report as follows:
I understand that Dr. Clark has ... indicated ... that he would like an opinion as to whether parliament can enact laws providing certain classes of what he refers to as "flat survivor benefits". While I understand that it is contemplated that these benefits would be provided in conjunction with old age pension schemes, it would appear that the scheme is that the benefits would be for. or for the benefit of, children or widows and not for persons who have attained "old age".


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is for both.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The quotation continues:
While it is impossible to express an opinion with any assurance concerning parliament's powers to make laws of a certain class in the absence of some concrete project, I am of opinion that a law enacted by parliament under section 94A supra could not provide pensions or similar benefits for persons on any ground other than their attaining of "old age".
Old Age Security Act


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad my hon. friend admits that it is right. It is a pity that he did not read it earlier, as then he would not have had to ask all those questions which he has been asking-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister does not understand what I am talking about.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -in the course of his long and tedious speeches in these debates.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has not understood me.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What this opinion makes perfectly clear-


Douglas Scott Harkness: It would be better if the hon. member for Essex East did not interrupt so much.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not interrupt.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What this opinion makes perfectly clear is that a pension scheme providing graduated benefits based on contributions would be possible but that a scheme going beyond that point and providing survivors or disability benefits not payable on account of old age could not be enacted under the authority of present section 94A.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But the government could have acted in 1959.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have the greatest affection for my friend the hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The feeling is mutual.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He spoke at great length this afternoon. We heard him with what I think was commendable patience. I would suggest that he might attempt to restrain himself until he has another rightful occasion to intervene in the debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That will come.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The reason why a constitutional amendment is necessary in order to provide the authority for such a comprehensive scheme as that which we have in mind is quite clear. It is that the 1951 amendment, now section 94A, was drawn purposely with the object in view of authorizing a simple contributory old age pension scheme on the basis of the report of the committee-I refer to the report of the all-party committee which met and which, as my hon. friend pointed out, was accepted by the government of that day-on the basis of their view that such a scheme should not be based on and should not include the wider benefits possible under any scheme resembling that of the

Old Age Security Act
United States. In other words, the 1951 amendment was drawn having in mind purely and simply a contributory old age pension scheme with benefits payable by virtue of old age and for no other reason. That is why any scheme which contemplates the extension of such benefits to disability and survivors benefits must have the authority of a constitutional amendment.
What we now want, on the basis of the explanation of our proposal given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), and repeated by my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) is authority to include such matters as disability and survivors benefits and possibly the regulation of private pension plans, including portability. All these are things which I point out to you are not necessarily embraced within the half-baked first scheme or even the amended scheme put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson)- but they are in a category-that is to say disability and survivor benefits and the regulation of private pension plans including portability-which are not necessarily incidental to old age pensions. They are not necessarily incidental thereto and they are therefore in a category which might otherwise be struck down by the courts if the legislation establishing them is not covered by a constitutional amendment broad enough to include them without question.
As I have pointed out, this is established by the opinion of 1958 which is reproduced in the Clark report. That is why the letter sent by the Prime Minister to the provincial premiers includes the following statement:
The law officers of the crown advise me that this authority-
This authority being section 94A.
-would permit parliament to enact a contributory, graduated old age pension plan but would not permit the inclusion of benefits payable under certain circumstances to widows and children, nor to contributors who become disabled before they are old. To extend the law in this most desirable way, it would be necessary to replace the present section with one reading as follows:
Then the proposed amendment to section 94A is reproduced. I may say that I am reading there from the appendix to Hansard of January 22.
Indeed, I might point out that in our discussions with the provinces to date there has been an indication that the proposed amendment is not wide enough to accomplish the objective we have in mind. I refer specifically of course to the letter from the premier of Saskatchewan which was tabled in this house today and in which Mr. Lloyd suggests that the proposed section 94A-that is to say the amendment we propose-could be interpreted by the courts as being too narrow to

cover a contributory graduated old age pension plan which would include pensions to widows and children and to contributors who become disabled before they are old.
We do not accept that view. However, I mention it in order to point out that here is a provincial premier writing, with the advice of his constitutional advisers, to say that possibly the amendment we propose does not go far enough to enable it to embrace the things which we want to see in such a scheme. Although we do not accept that view, I suggest that it is as valid as is the view of my hon. friend, or indeed that it is more valid than is the view of my friend the hon. member for Essex East who says, on the basis of an authority which he does not cite, that we do not need any amendment at all to section 94A in order to include such a scheme.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is only his opinion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We do not agree with the view of the premier of Saskatchewan. We think that our amendment is wide enough. But there certainly is authority for the proposition that an amendment, a broadening of the powers of the federal government as now contained in section 94A, is essential if we are to have a sure and sound ground on which to found legislation providing a scheme such as that which we have in mind.
Indeed I have also pointed out-and I come back to this point-that this view or this opinion was published in the Clark report in 1959 and that no one, including my friend the hon. member for Essex East, from that day to this or rather from that day until yesterday has ever suggested that the opinion there recorded was inaccurate or incorrect. I wonder why it is left until this late date for my friend from Essex East to raise this point. Is the reason that he recognizes that he requires some foundation of subterfuge, shall I say, in order to get away with the half-baked scheme they have proposed?


Michael Starr: Half-baked promises.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My friend the Minister of Labour says "half-baked promises". Indeed, perhaps we should call it quarter-baked, as it has had to be amended and brought up to date. I think the reason why my hon. friend raises this point now must be found in the fact that he realizes that without such a constitutional amendment indeed their scheme cannot be brought in, that they did not give consideration to the point, and that therefore he has now to pretend that no constitutional amendment is necessary. But on second thought, Mr. Speaker, perhaps one could admit that no constitutional amendment might be necessary to bring in the Liberal scheme, which does not appear to exist in fact at all

but only in print; and if this is so and my hon. friend's argument is right with respect to the scheme he envisages, then I suggest to you and the house that this leads us to one obvious and inescapable conclusion. It means that their scheme is not as comprehensive, not as satisfactory as the scheme which we wish to bring in; and of course, sir, this is the only conclusion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Another promise.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This, of course, is quite in keeping with the attitude of the Liberal party which, in spite of their fervent protestations that they do no want to indulge in a bidding contest for the support of the electors, has been doing that increasingly over the past 18 months. The bidding contest culminated in the meeting of this January when they suddenly realized that they had not been outbid, no, but that their bid had been exposed not as a bid but as a sham.
So they hastily amended this particular scheme and rewrote a number of others apparently in a frenzy of fear. Notwithstanding that I think we are all left, as the Canadian people are left, with the unanswered question whether even these new guide lines for the Liberal party laid down by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pick-ersgill) will have the result desired by Liberals of providing a satisfactory antidote to that song about the poor little sheep who have gone astray, doomed from here to eternity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I know that the applause is not for me. Does the hon. member wish to raise a point of order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to put a question, but before doing so may I say I am sure that some of the applause was for Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) this question. In view of the fact that he was aware of the opinion given by the deputy attorney general of Canada to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) in 1959 and in view of the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), will the Minister of Justice explain why the government did not bring forward a contributory scheme at that time?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry it is necessary to reiterate what has already been said. The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare told the house of our hope that in consultation with the provinces we would be able to devise a satisfactory formula for amending the constitution 26207-1-39J
Old Age Security Act
in Canada, a project upon which we embarked in July of 1960 with very real hopes that we would be able to reach an early solution of that problem. It is only in the last few months that it has become apparent that we may not be able to reach a solution as early as we had hoped. We have now decided that the proper course is to submit this proposal to the provinces in the old way, a way we regret, which would involve applying to Westminster to make an amendment, but owing to the intransigence-perhaps I should not say "intransigence", but rather, owing to the difficulties which certain of the provinces have found in accepting the formula-it appears that this is the only method of proceeding.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the best yet. We have never had anything as fanciful as this reply.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the debate on the resolution, the debate on the bill and particularly to the dramatic eloquence of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). You know, Mr. Speaker, when he was speaking this afternoon I was suddenly reminded of a time in November, 1932 when I attended a convention of the British Columbia Liberal association in the hotel Vancouver. I remember the late Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie saying, when dealing with the question of old age security, "Ladies and gentlemen, the flaming sword of Liberalism is about to descend on the decadent head of Toryism". I think the mannerism, eloquence and style were very similar.
I was also interested in the mellow but very well delivered apologia of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton). I thought he made a very good case for the government's delinquency so far as this legislation is concerned. But, Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for this measure as providing for at least a minor improvement in the economic circumstances of many of our senior citizens. However, I must remind the house that in view of the statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in 1958, with all their sense of urgency, and in view of the appointment of the gentleman-I forget his name-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Huson.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Professor Huson-to deal with this matter and his later resignation because he could not deliver a report within the required six months-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Four months.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In a few months anyway- and in view of the tabling of the Clark report in 1959, I think it is a bit odd on the part of the Minister of Justice to tell us now, after

Old Age Security Act
the government has had from 1959 to deal with the matter, that they are now going to give consideration to an over-all security pension plan.
We have been kept in a state of suspense. We have had these many months of anticipation, and it is quite right to say that we on the opposition side feel as though we have been somewhat let down. It is because of that feeling that there have been rather caustic and cryptic remarks by various speakers in the official and unofficial opposition.
We are seriously disappointed that the government has not presented an over-all retirement plan as a result of the opportunity it has had to study the well publicized Clark report, I want to say before I go any further, because I want to be as non-partisan and constructive as possible, as is the practice of the group for whom I am speaking at the moment, that we dislike the question of old age security and related legislation being placed on the auction block of election expediency from year to year. This serious and important question is one that we believe should be treated on a strictly non-partisan basis. While criticizing government measures we should in debating this question oiler some constructive proposals. I think there have been a number of constructive proposals offered by various spokesmen on the opposition side of the house.
I am sure that all of us will agree that all members are aware of the need for an overall retirement pension plan covering all groups in our society. All members recognize the responsibility of this parliament to the people of Canada to provide this plan as soon as possible. I am sure all of us recognize that this nation has the financial ability to meet the needs and the rights of our senior citizens to participate in the benefits of production and the standard of living that the great majority enjoy at the present time.
I have read a lot on this subject and I am really going to be quite brief. But I do want to make my voice heard on this occasion because I have spent all my life fighting for the underdog or on occasions tilting at windmills.
I thought this was a very good paragraph in an article by Mr. Harry J. Waisglass in the Canadian Welfare magazine of July 15, 1961. When describing the right of our senior citizens to participate in the wealth of the nation, he had this to say:
Another objective of social security systems might be to distribute productivity gains more equitably, not only between economic classes or between geographical regions within the nation but also between the various generations of the population. The aged have a right to share in current productivity gains, which are attributable largely to the contributions of earlier generations in building our current stock of social and business capital and technology.
[Mr. Herridge.l
This measure is a recognition, to a limited extent, of the right of our senior citizens to gain from this increase in our national productivity. As I said before, I do not think anyone in this house questions the ability of the Canadian nation to finance a sound and equitable national pension scheme to cover all our citizens. I think the great difference of opinion is as to method and as to the mechanics of the scheme. That is where the great difference of opinion comes.
We believe, Mr. Speaker, as other speakers have mentioned before, that the plan should provide a basic security pension for our industrial workers, farmers, self-employed persons, those in the public service, in fact all Canadians. This is going to mean considerable integration of private and public pension plans in an over-all national pension scheme.
How should it be financed? We in this group believe it should be financed in two or three ways. First, it should be financed by a measure of taxation which has to be determined by the circumstances of the time. Second, it should be financed by contributions from the employer, from the employed and from the self-employed. Third, we stress that under present circumstances pension funds are largely invested by insurance companies in certain companies and private investment schemes across the country. We in this group believe there is an excellent way of financing this pension plan, while at the same time providing the funds that are necessary for certain national publicly owned projects in this country. This plan could be partly financed also from the profits on invested funds, contributions and so on, in public ownership projects, such as power projects, highways, hospitals, schools and necessary services. All of these are self-liquidating projects. We believe that if we mobilize public interest in this, mobilize shall I say that sense of participation in the national pension scheme and in the investment of these funds in self-liquidating projects like the Mica creek dam that has been proposed, a method of financing would be found. Whether you have a capitalist or a socialist society, you cannot operate successfully without having a surplus.


Mr. Rowe:: How would you take your funds out of public ownership?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very pleased to see the hon. gentleman in his seat. I do not want to detain the house too long, but if he will come to my office afterwards I will give him a lecture in economics.
We do believe that in this third way you could finance a sound pension scheme. As I said before, we recognize the need for a surplus which, in this case, could be applied

to advantage. In conclusion, we in this group urge the members of this house to take an objective approach to this very serious and important question because it is a question for which as yet no satisfactory solution has been found. This is only another piecemeal approach to the problem and towards the development of an over-all national retirement scheme. We believe also that to secure the support that is necessary for such a scheme, to place it on the soundest possible foundation, we have to get public co-operation. We have to get the public of Canada talking, not about the government's pension scheme but about our pension scheme. I think that is the road to success. We should do away with this idea that the government produces cash from somewhere and dishes it out to people who need it. No government provides anything for anyone without first taking something away from someone. I think we should understand that.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) does not understand it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad to know that my Conservative friends opposite realize I am quite sound. We believe that two and two make four. We believe the public should be fully informed of the details of any plan. Public relations are necessary in this respect as to the cost of any plan. You do not get something for nothing. All this talk about things being free is wrong. When it comes to a question of private charity and things of that sort, there is such a thing as something for nothing. However, generally speaking, you do not get something for nothing. If it is worth anything, you have to pay for it or somebody else has to pay for it.
Then, there should be discussion and information on how the funds are to be provided and the details as to benefits. I do urge we approach the problem from this point of view. In order to ensure success, we have to have the understanding and cooperation of the Canadian people. I am sure that a sound plan can be devised and if the public are fully informed it will receive their support.
Now, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I do urge that this be the last occasion on which we nibble at this problem. I do urge the government to give consideration to the ideas we have placed before the house. As Winston Churchill said on one occasion, let us organize our thinking in this respect; let us develop a national pension plan and in so doing let us bring the magic of the law of averages to the rescue of millions.
Old Age Security Act


Mr. H. C. McQuillan (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to follow the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). In many respects our thinking runs parallel. We are both rated as lumber barons from British Columbia. I really enjoy his mouthings of socialist dogma such as I hear sometimes because I know the hon. member resents a planned economy quite as much as I do.
There are two reasons, Mr. Speaker, why I wish to speak on this bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member permit a question, Mr. Speaker? I could not hear what he said, but it has been passed along to me by my confederates on the left. Did the hon. member say I resented a planned monopoly?


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: You resent a planned
economy.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, I was referring in this statement to the need for a planned economy.


Henry Frank Jones: Like in Saskatchewan, where they only give $2.50 per month for old age assistance.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: There are two reasons I wish to speak on this bill. One is that as a result of climatic conditions in Comox-Alberni, we have a higher percentage of old age pensioners than any other part of Canada. Another reason is that I happen to occupy a seat that was held by one of the greatest members who ever sat in this parliament, the late A. W. Neill. Despite all the protestations of the Liberal party and new party, the late A. W. Neill played a very important part in bringing about the introduction of old age pensions in Canada. He was an independent member for Comox-Alberni and, as such, his support was badly needed by the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King in 1926, in order to retain power as government.
Mr. Neill has often told me the story and I may be pardoned for going back into history a little bit because that has been done so many times today. This is an entirely different story from what I have heard from members of the new party group and of the Liberal party, and I believe most of us will find it interesting. In order to win Mr. Neill's support, the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King undertook- and he was working with the late Mr. Heaps and the late Mr. Woodsworth-to introduce old age pensions. Mr. Neill told me "We had everything set. The Prime Minister agreed to introduce the legislation. He did introduce the legislation but behind our backs he made a deal with members of the other house to kill the legislation when it reached there." In view of statements and press reports of

Old Age Security Act
speeches made by some of the leading lights in the Liberal party, I wonder whether this legislation is not also going to be killed in the other place. I leave that thought in your minds.
The new party group are loud in their protestations and appeals for greater help for the old age pensioners and for the middle-aged who cannot fit themselves into industry. I am going to suggest one way by which they and their colleagues, the labour unions, might help. It is a suggestion I want my hon. friend from Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) to listen to, because I think he will go along with the idea. There are few companies in Canada today which do not operate under a union agreement in which there is a maintenance of members or, in other words, a closed shop.
From experience I know there are often casual part time jobs which could be quite well filled by old age pensioners and others who have found themselves unemployed in their later working years. There is a still greater number of jobs that might be filled by those over 55 years of age but, in every case where there is a union agreement, the union insists that should these men be employed they must become members of the union and pay dues regularly. This is an unfair imposition on old age pensioners, and particularly on men past 50 years of age who find themselves unemployed. To join some unions costs $100 and the dues run as high as $9 or $10 per month.
Last fall I learned of a case where a union official insisted on a man 66 years of age joining the union at a cost of $100, or else leaving his job. At the same time, union officials were pressing an old age pensioner, another employee of that particular company, to join the union. However, I made it very plain that if they insisted I would make a public issue of it. In that case they did not insist, but many times they do get away with their bluff.
As I say, it is most unfair of the labour unions, the colleagues of the New Democratic party, to insist upon dues being paid by old age pensioners who are trying to eke out a living, and I believe the members of the new party should prevail on their union colleagues to cease this practice.
I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Essex East, who reminded me a good deal of the blue jays I see in my garden. Once in a while I chase them out of my berry patch and they fly up onto the limbs of a tree, chattering away. When I throw a stone at them they fly to another tree and keep on chattering. They never stop and, so far as I am concerned, I shall always think of the

hon. member for Essex East as a blue jay or camp robber. Sometimes those birds are known as whisky-jacks.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is the hon. member for Bon-avista-Twillingate who is the Jack.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: We heard a great deal this afternoon about the United States social security program. I do not like to fill out speeches by quoting from newspapers and Hansard, but on this occasion I feel I must read an article in tonight's Ottawa Citizen written by Harold Morrison, Canadian Press staff writer. It reads:
U.S. Social Security like a giant lottery-The United States old age pensions system-known as social security-is somewhat like a giant lottery where most contributors get something in return but a few persons get the big prizes.
In operation for a quarter century, the contributory system provides for monthly pensions ranging from $40 to $127 for single persons and from $60 to $191 for married couples.
Built up through a special tax levied on wage-earners, employers and the self-employed, this pension is payable to contributors reaching the age of 65. A reduced pension is paid to those retiring at 62.
A survey by the social security administration shows that 58 per cent of the beneficiaries are receiving $75 a month or less. About 41 per cent get $55 a month or less and 21 per cent get $40 or less.
This is what has been portrayed to us as the pension scheme to meet all pensions, but as I read this report I can state it is not the pattern we should follow as the pattern to end all patterns.
I cannot help returning to the hon. member for Essex East who talked about how the Liberal party initiated all the social security legislation which we have.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: He knows it is not true by any means.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said all the basic acts.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: I have a letter here from a fine old lady in my constituency who writes to me occasionally. She is a forthright old lady and in this letter she says, referring to the Liberal party:
Twenty years is a very long time. Had they not promised so much and kept those promises which they could, not which they made, they perhaps could have been in there still. John Diefenbaker has done more for the old age pensioners than any prime minister before him.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have listened for some time to hon. members in all parties attempting to gather as much credit as possible for the old age pension legislation that we have had over the years and the old age pension legislation that is now before us. I do not think any government bringing in

improvements to old age pension legislation can successfully claim for itself total credit for the legislation or for the improvements that are being brought forward.
I had an opportunity to sit in this house from 1945 to 1957 while a Liberal administration was in office. The former minister of national health and welfare, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), will agree with me, I believe, when I say that over the years many distinguished members of the C.C.F. party have been helpful in parliament and throughout the country in building a climate which would make improvements in old age pensions possible and acceptable. I think that when we are debating the particular scheme before us at this time all parties in this house conscientiously believe that improvements should be made in our old age security legislation. There may be differences as to degree; there may be differences as to timing, but certainly we want something to be done.
The government in bringing in a measure to increase old age security pensions by $10 a month says it has another scheme, and requires a constitutional amendment in order to provide a national retirement plan. Both the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) say that the government's proposals in this regard are based on the Clark report. Then they say that one of the main reasons, if not the chief reason, why they are convinced they require a constitutional amendment is that the need for such an amendment has been pointed out in the Clark report. Well, the government has had the Clark report for three years. I have in my hand the first volume-the second was issued on the same date-and the letter signed by Robert M. Clark and addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare is dated February 12, 1959. What has been the situation in this house? Opposition members of both parties have asked the government from time to time when it intended to take action on the Clark report. What was the standard reply? The government said: we are studying it; we are giving consideration to it. For three long years needy old age pensioners have waited upon a government which has looked upon them in a somewhat callous manner during this period. This present measure is, of course, something of a deathbed repentance. It certainly is a repentance very close to election day. Now the government is saying: Trust us; we shall bring it in and we shall look after you if you return us for another period.
A few years ago the C.C.F. party put forward a pension plan. It was laughed at and ridiculed by people who said it was going to
Old Age Security Act
cost too much. The country cannot afford it, they said. There is less ridicule today. The Liberal party has brought forward a plan which goes beyond what is proposed in this legislation. It is a plan which will provide a minimum of $75 a month for single persons- the same amount as was in the plan put forward by this party some years ago. The people of this country want the government to do more and I think this legislation will obtain the support of the Canadian people.
The proposal before us today will cost a great deal of money; old age pension legislation is expensive. But I think that in addition to considering the cost we should consider the plight of many of our retired citizens. We have campaigned for years to improve old age pensions, to increase the size of the payments and to make them applicable to a larger number of Canadian citizens. We have been making some real progress, but I do not think we have gone far enough. Some people have said the political parties are putting old age pensioners on the auction block. I am personally acquainted with a great many people who have retired and who have little or nothing more to live on than their old age pensions. They are interested in the position being taken by the various parties. They are interested in finding out whether or not one party is more advanced than another in this particular field.
I live in the small hamlet of Kay ville in Saskatchewan and along the street where I live there are a number of people who are in receipt of old age pensions. There are a number of widows, a number of widowers and a number of couples. As a matter of fact, there are so many people receiving old age pensions on this street that it is commonly known as pension avenue. I know these people personally, and some of them are having a very difficult time indeed. I ask hon. members to reflect and ask themselves how a person with an income of only $55 a month can survive if that income is not supplemented by other means. I think we all recognize that in talking about retirement plans we need to raise our sights and increase the amount of the pension. The plans will be based, to some extent, on the income of the person who obtains the pension during some period prior to his becoming eligible for that pension. One of the main purposes is to get an increase in the amount of the pension to retired persons. Hon. members from this side of the house have been advocating a pension of $75 a month. I speak, now, not from a position where I can state this as the policy of this party; rather, I am voicing my own opinion which I hope will be given consideration. I am suggesting that we should take steps, and take them immediately, to

Old Age Security Act
make certain that people who are retired in this country shall have an income of not less than $100 a month. I do not think that is a fabulous figure even though I see some hon. members opposite are sneering.


Henry Frank Jones: Even the needy people in Saskatchewan do not get that much. The rate in Saskatchewan is among the lowest in this country.


Hazen Robert Argue: My hon. friend can play politics if he likes. I invite him to help himself. However, I am saying to him, and he can correct me if he thinks I am wrong, the figure of $100 is not a fabulous sum.


Henry Frank Jones: The hon. member for Saskatoon does not play politics. Charity should begin at home. Why does the hon. member not start by attempting to help the people in Saskatchewan?


Hazen Robert Argue: I repeat that the sum of $100 a month cannot be considered a fabulous sum in 1962.


Henry Frank Jones: The sum of $2.50 a month is paid in Saskatchewan. That is what the C.C.F. gives the needy people in Saskatchewan.


Hazen Robert Argue: My hon. friend who is running off at the mouth can get up and make his own speech when I have finished.


Henry Frank Jones: I am just stating facts.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am sure the retired people in Saskatoon would like to know the hon. member's opinion. X am sure the old age pensioners in Saskatoon would like to see the hon. member take a stand.


Henry Frank Jones: The people of Saskatoon know where I stand in this regard. I stood behind this government to increase the old age pension.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, I know this hurts. Tempers are getting short.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Order.


Henry Frank Jones: Two fifty in Saskatchewan.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I may proceed in spite of the continued interruptions of my hon. friend I would say-


Henry Frank Jones: The two and a half buck boys, that's the C.C.F.'ers.


Hazen Robert Argue: -I do not think $100 is a fabulous sum for a person to live on in this country in 1962. I suggest that a minimum monthly income of this amount should not be beyond the ingenuity of all levels of government co-operating together to provide.
I live in a small community where there are a number of retired people on low incomes. I ask hon. gentlemen to consider

for a moment what a person receiving $100 a month might do with a sum that size. I suggest that if you put down $1 a day for food, it is not a fabulous sum. It is only $30 a month. If you put down $1 a day as the cost of operating a home, for upkeep, taxes, fuel and repairs, that is not a fabulous sum. If you put down $10 a month representing the cost of medical and dental care, hospitalization and optical care, that is not a large or generous sum. If you put down $10 a month for clothing, it is not particularly adequate.


An hon. Member:: It is too much.


Hazen Robert Argue: Someone says that is too much. Perhaps the sum of $30 for shelter is not adequate and an adjustment could be made. In any event, the figures I have given would total $80 a month and only $20 a month would remain, 65 or 66 cents a day, as the total sum of money available for transportation, recreation, cigarettes if a person smoked, the purchase of gifts for relatives and friends and other miscellaneous items. I suggest that hon. members should have $100 in mind when considering an old age security program.


An hon. Member:: How much does the government of Saskatchewan put up?


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not think $100 is too large a sum. The government is taking steps to provide $65 a month and I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare clearly recognizes that this sum is not sufficient. That recognition is revealed in a speech he made in this house on February 5 as reported at page 531 of Hansard when he stated:
Under the federal unemployment assistance program through which this is achieved-
He was speaking about further increases. I continue:
-there is no ceiling on the amount which the federal government will share in meeting the individual needs of older persons. It is left to the provinces to determine the upper limit of the additional assistance. For example, if a province were to decide that the upper limit should be $85 or even higher in relation to the special needs of the individual pensioner, we would be prepared to pay 5C per cent of the cost involved, that is of the cost over $65. The federal government would then actually be paying over 88 per cent of the $85.
I point this out to indicate that the minister is sympathetic to the need of providing more than $65 a month, at least in particular circumstances, and to show that in addition to the provisions of the Old Age Security Act and old age assistance the minister says part of the legislative program to deal with the needs of retired people is the Unemployment Assistance Act.
I suggest that we as parliamentarians should bring together when considering a program

of this nature the provisions of the Unemployment Assistance Act, the Old Age Security Act and the Old Age Assistance Act and should say we are prepared to provide a minimum pension of $100 a month based on a means test.
That would not mean that everyone upon reaching age 70 would receive $100 any more than under present conditions everyone upon reaching age 65 receives the old age pension. Of approximately 500,000 people in Canada between ages 65 and 70, about 21 per cent or just under 100,000 receive old age assistance I see no reason why the percentage above age 70 requiring this type of assistance would be much higher than 21 per cent although it might be a little higher.
The proposal I advance would not mean the payment of this additional sum to the wealthy or those with high incomes. However, the adoption of this proposal would provide everyone over age 65 with a minimum income of $100 a month.
The present proposals introduced by the minister will cost the government an additional $113.4 million. I do not have the advantage of the minister's technical staff but from information I have gleaned from his department, I suggest the proposal I have put forward would cost between $110 and $115 million. If my proposal were adopted the government would no longer have to pay through unemployment insurance its share of payments, formerly above $55 and now above the proposed $65 a month. The whole sum would not be an additional cost to the federal treasury. I am certain the government could work out with the provinces a means by which they would come in. The federal government might have to be more generous and pay more than 50 per cent but in any event my proposition would cost the federal treasury less than the total sum to which I have referred.
The adoption of my proposal would have this effect. Canadians who have reached age 65 would be assured of this minimum monthly income even before the retirement plan comes into effect, no matter what the plan might be. The adoption of my proposal would not mean an additional expenditure in this area every year from now on because after the retirement fund was built up-whether it be the scheme put forward by the government, the official opposition or the New Democratic party-the minimum income for almost everyone would be in excess of $100 a month. This cost would steadily diminish and would decrease to almost zero when the retirement plan, whichever scheme might be adopted, is fully operating.
I am suggesting that for people who have reached retirement age in this nation the 26207-1-40
Old Age Security Act
federal government, in co-operation with the provincial governments, should undertake action to provide this basic minimum income. Someone says, "Oh, that is putting back the means test". Every retirement plan that is put forward has in it a means test. It states that the amount of money going into the plan or being paid into the plan by any person shall be related to his income and that the pension paid out under the plan shall be related to the income, so that if you have a high income you get a relatively high pension. That is certainly a means test.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of proposal would take some working out and would require the co-operation of the provinces, but I am suggesting that it is a laudable objective to see to it that Canadians who have reached retirement age shall have a minimum income of much more than $65 or $75 a month.
The concept of old age pensions introduced many years ago was that the nation should undertake a measure to prevent grave hardship or to prevent people from becoming a burden on their relatives. I suggest that our concept now should be changed and that we are undertaking these measures to make it possible for Canadian citizens who have reached retirement age to go on enjoying a fair share of the great production of this country. I think the pension plan we are talking about today is a break-through. It means that we are moving from subsistence pensions to pensions based on a Canadian standard of living. The years ahead will prove that a $100 pension I have been advocating tonight is not fantastic and is not far fetched but is within the competence of governments of this country to provide.
I do not know what progress we are going to make on this particular stage of this particular debate, Mr. Speaker. However, in recent days I have been very much concerned that we should very rapidly pass the legislation that has been placed on the order paper so that, if the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) has it in his mind to dissolve parliament at the end of this week, this legislation shall have been passed in the House of Commons. I think I was rushing things a bit too much. I do not think the Prime Minister has any intention at all of dissolving parliament during the present week. I note that the Conservatives are applauding. They do not know what would happen if dissolution took place. In press reports I observe a great deal of speculation with regard to the date of the election, with mention being made of April 9 or May 7. It is a favourite guessing game. I have had occasion to look back on the experience we had in this regard in 1958. Of course they have said, "We could not
614	HOUSE OF
Old Age Security Act
have an election on April 16 because that is Monday of holy week and it is out of the question". I observe a nod on the part of an hon. member across the way. The nod was in the other direction in 1958 as the election was held on the Monday of holy week. If this was possible in 1958, I take it that it is possible in 1962.
I go even further. Knowing how the Prime Minister loves anniversaries or loves to think of important dates in the nature of anniversaries, I would think that this particular Monday of holy week would have a great appeal to him. Should this be the case, I am sure this legislation will long have been passed by this house. We shall be able to deal with any important legislation of value which the Prime Minister wishes to place before the House of Commons and we shall have ample time in which to hear and to consider the budget which undoubtedly the government will bring in for the purpose of showing how these programs are being financed and in order to show the Canadian public how the government is keeping track of the accounts of this nation.
We are greatly pleased to support this bill on second reading. We believe that the position of old age pensioners requires the government to go much further than it goes in this bill.
(Translation):


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take up a few minutes of the house's time in order to point out to my constituents the advantages resulting from this legislation. I should also like to tell the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) that the people of my riding are grateful for the concern he shows for the aged.
Mr. Speaker, when the minister introduced his resolution, I expected to read on the faces of the hon. members opposite, satisfaction at the government's achievements. Unfortunately, they showed only dismay, I would call it electoral dismay because they realized that the Conservatives have succeeded in doing in only five years what they could not do in 25.
I should like to point out that not one single Liberal backbencher has spoken in favour or against this important bill. Their constituents would certainly like to know what their position is in that respect. As for us, Conservative members, we are proud to


say that we consider this measure as a practical and appropriate piece of legislation.
The Liberals have chosen the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) as their mouthpiece, the very same who, not so long ago, under the Liberal administration, was responsible for the government's refusal to increase old age pensions.
I wonder why the Liberals and especially the hon. member for Essex East failed to say who would foot the bill when they demanded this increase.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Canadian people.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the hon. member for Essex East tell me that the Canadian people are going to pay, because, on March 22, 1957, as may be seen on page 2608 of Hansard, while the members of the opposition of that time, the government members of today, were asking for an increase in the old age pension, the hon. member for Essex East, who was then minister of national health and welfare, replied:
I think this is the proper place for me to make the observation that it is not the government that has to pay for these particular proposals; it is the people of Canada. It comes out of the hard work of the people of Canada and those hon. gentlemen on all sides of the house who do not bear this in mind are not fair in their presentation of this issue.
That is a statement made in March 1957 by the hon. member for Essex East who is now asking for a larger increase in the old age pension. At that time, he denied it to the people of Canada under the pretext that the people had to foot the bill; and today, he demands a larger increase. Those are the inconsistencies that our Liberal friends refuse to see or cannot see because there are none so blind as those who will not see.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether it would not be better for those Liberals who are now cheering to stand up and comment on this bill because in 1957, when the Conservatives were asking for an increase in the old age pension, there was nothing in the speech from the throne introduced by the government of the day providing for such an increase. It seemed that the then Liberal government had neglected that class of our senior citizens. The speech from the throne made no mention of an increase in the old age pension; however, at the last minute, in order to secure a political advantage, the

Liberal party offered a paltry increase of $6 a month to our senior citizens. And even on that occasion, not a single Liberal member-and I have checked the official record- asked, on behalf of his constituents, for a more adequate increase in the old age pension rate.
And yet, in 1957, the Liberals had overtaxed the Canadians for almost $800 million. They had centralized in their hands more than 78 per cent of the taxation sources in Canada; but they were shocked when the opposition asked that the old age pension be increased. They were satisfied with granting an increase that was the equivalent of a cup of coffee a day.
Mr. Speaker, what surprises me most, is the attitude of the hon. member for Essex East in this house.
I read with attention the speech he delivered on March 22, 1957 during the budget debate. His contribution to that debate covers seven pages of Hansard and amounts to 40 paragraphs. Nevertheless, in that lengthy speech, the then minister of national health and welfare, now member for Essex East, made only two very minor references to the Old age pension. This clearly indicates the lack of interest shown by our Liberal friends in the fate of our senior citizens.
The Liberal policy comprises much that is illogical, inconsistent and contradictory and it shows most of all in the attitude of the hon. member for Essex East. That is why I should like to remind the house of what the hon. member said here on February 5, 1962, that is last night, and I quote from page 534 of the official report:
(Text):
This particular government displays its great interest in the social welfare of our people on the eve of a general election.
(Translation):
It is the story of the culprit who accuses. It was the culprit who found himself under accusation last night. As proof of this, I shall quote an article on the budget published in the Ottawa Journal of March 15, 1957:
Why has the government which-
I am speaking of the Liberal government of the time and of the then minister of health and welfare, who is now member for Essex East; I quote:
Why has the government which levies taxes, makes expenditures and accumulates large surpluses waited until now to provide some assistance to the old people?
This is what was being said about the minister of national health and welfare who proposed at the last minute a $6 increase in 26207-1-401
Old Age Security Act
old age pensions. There are also others in the Liberal party with the same mentality as the member for Essex East: inconsistency and falseness. To prove my point, I shall quote from Hansard of February 5. Those are the exact words used by the hon. member for Essex East according to page 534 of the official report:
(Text):
The Liberal party is the author of every single act of social welfare on federal account that has been enacted in this House of Commons.
(Translation):
Let the applause continue because here is what the hon. member for Essex East said on March 22, 1957, as reported on page 2613 of Hansard in reference to a member of the opposition who claimed that his party was the one which had done the most in the field of social security:
He belongs to a party which seeks to give the impression that it alone is interested in welfare
measures.
What the hon. member for Essex East claims today, he was then holding against that member of the opposition. As usual, Liberal confusion and contradiction.
At the outset of my remarks I spoke of falseness. Among social pieces of legislation, there is unemployment insurance which was initiated exclusively by the Conservatives.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Georges-J. Valade: I see some hon. members laughing. I dare them to prove the contrary, that unemployment insurance was not established by the Conservatives. Better still, to answer them, I shall use the words of one of them, Mr. Chevrier, who, on July 2, 1958 said, and I quote from Hansard, page 1834:
Mr. Bennett wanted then to impose a direct tax in order to finance an unemployment insurance fund.
Those are the words of one of your leaders who, himself, said that unemployment insurance had been brought about by the Conservative party.


An hon. Member:: There was unemployment,
then.


Georges-J. Valade: Unemployment insurance and hospital insurance have been brought about by the Conservative party. The Liberals spoke about it for 39 years, they discussed the matter for 39 years and, within two years, the Conservatives had put these social measures into effect. The Conservative are making these grants, while the Liberals then had a surplus of $800 million; it is the Conservatives who, today, have to pay the debt they inherited

Old Age Security Act
and who are still making these payments. Hospital insurance, the benefits of which all Canadians are sharing, is a Conservative party achievement. Above all, the inadequate pension plan introduced for electoral purposes by the Liberals was raised to an acceptable standard by the Conservatives. We have improved this social legislation from a human point of view. We have given it a truly social character, in that we have seen to it that it met the needs of those for whom it was meant.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact-


An hon. Member:: What about family
allowances?


Georges-J. Valade: I shall come back to that.
But in view of the fact that I have only a few seconds left, I should like to point out a glaring contradiction in the present views of the Liberal party and the views they held when they were in power. I wish to point out a contradiction between the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill).
In Hansard of February 5, 1962, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is quoted as saying:
I thought it worth while to send out and get the cost of living index to see what the situation was.
And the member for Bonavista-Twillingate says to his colleague: I will study the cost of living index to find out if the government is really increasing the pension to meet the increased cost of living. On the other hand, the minister of national health and welfare in the former Liberal government, now member for Essex East, adopted an attitude entirely different from the one his colleague from Bonavista-Twillingate is taking today, since, as shown on page 2610 of the official record for March 22, 1957, he said:
I do not mind saying, as I said on another occasion, that to relate these benefits ... is a dangerous thing-
About the increase in old age pensions, he said:
-to relate these benefits to the rise or decline in the cost of living or even to the gross national product can be a dangerous thing because if that standard is maintained at all times you could create a situation leading to pressure for reductions.
That is a completely opposite attitude on the part of those two colleagues, of two of the four horses of the Apocalypse, who are sitting together.
Here you have a contradiction in the understanding of the problem, thanks to which the population can realize that the present attitude of the Liberal party is not based on honesty, but rather designed to mislead the people. This is granting them credit they do not deserve. Fortunately, the population very

well realizes that the Conservative party has achievements to its credit, that it has taken an interest in that category of our older people, by giving them an adequate pension which will allow them to live honourably.
Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, since I have to cut short, I must at least say that this legislation will bring a considerable assistance to the class of citizens covered by this bill, particularly in my riding.
In my constituency, there are two large homes for aged people. So far, until the Conservative administration came to office, those institutions could hardly make both ends meet; pensions granted by our friends the Liberals were then inadequate. Today, I am happy to see that this increase will bring our institutions at least a worth-while income which will enable them to balance their budget.
I would like to publicly pay homage to our dedicated nuns who are devoting on a purely benevolent basis, their time, their health and their patience to the care of the aged.
On behalf of the voters of our district, I wish to thank you, Mr. Minister, for introducing this bill. I wish to congratulate you and I know that the people of Quebec will offer you their thanks by re-electing the Conservative government to office in the forthcoming election.
(Text):


Walter George Pitman: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to hold up the passage of this bill this evening but there are one or two remarks I want to make before it passes. I believe that all of us are treating this subject with the seriousness it deserves. I think all of us have old age pensioners in our constituencies. We might not have fishermen or wheat farmers, but we certainly are concerned about old age pensioners. I could not help feeling that there has been a slightly unfortunate emphasis during this debate. Perhaps if I were an elderly person I would feel like a beggar with my hat in my hand wondering on which side of the street to stand.
However, if anything has been proven by this debate it is that all three parties have played a major role in bringing about old age pensions in this country. Perhaps the emphasis should not be upon what we have done or, what we would have done, but rather it should be upon what we have invested in by this scheme. I feel we should take the emphasis off charity in so far as the old age pensioners are concerned. Surely what has happened over the past few years has convinced us whether we are farmers

or fishermen or storekeepers or lawyers that what we are really doing is investing in the elderly people. It is only through these transfer payments that we can keep our society going. This certainly has been proven by the events of this last winter when we had so many people unemployed because without the transfer payments by old age pensions, unemployment insurance, family allowances and so on, our whole economy might have broken down.
Surely, we should think about this and recognize that old age pensioners have no reason to thank us, no matter to what party we belong. We are lacking in markets. We are worried about foreign markets. Sometimes we forget that the most valuable market we have is the home market. The nearly one million old age pensioners which we have represent one of the most valuable markets we have, no matter in what part of the economy we happen to be working. I was very interested in listening to Dr. T. R. Langley, the retired chairman of Canadian General Electric. He was talking about this very matter, the fact that we cannot entirely depend upon increasing exports and production. We must look to our aged, to those people who are in the lower bracket of our economic system, to provide these markets for products which we are going to be producing in our industry.
My second and last point is that it is very unfortunate we have made political pawns of the aged. I think this strikes at the very basis of our whole political morality. I was talking to a doctor in my constituency last week end. He was saying to me, laughingly that it was too bad we did not have the old days in politics when you got a bottle of whiskey because then you knew what you were getting.


An hon. Member:: Yes, some headaches.


Walter George Pitman: Perhaps they did get a few headaches, but perhaps the headaches will come later when we have to pay for these things. What we need now is a new concept for determining what old age pensioners should receive. Could we not find some way of adjusting old age pensions automatically? Surely, there are two criteria. One factor would be need and the other would be what we could pay as a nation. I think the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) brought a very important element into this discussion when he suggested that two and two make four. We can only pay as a nation by taking something from somebody.
Could we not adjust the pension according to the cost of living, making this automatic adjustment every three months? This procedure would take pensions out of the election campaigns completely. Do we have to wait
Old Age Security Act
for three years after a report has been made? Do we have to have the charge and countercharge of political auctioneering going back and forth across this chamber? I do not think so. I can assure the minister his bill will get through this evening, so far as I am concerned. I have only one more sentence to complete my remarks.
Is there not another criterion, and that is what we can afford. Could we not adjust the pension to production? As has already been suggested in this chamber, the elderly people of this nation have a right to a share in the increasing productivity. They have just as much right to this as our labour force or those who are in management in the present industrial picture. Well, those are some of the comments which I should like to place before the minister. I hope that we will get out of this political vote-getting campaign. I hope that we can decide what portion of our national income our old age pensioners may justifiably receive. I hope that very soon we will be working on a contributory scheme, and that we will not have to wait until another election campaign to adjust the pension. 1 certainly hope that these criteria may be regarded as acceptable in a nation that has all the opportunities that Canada has.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate on second reading of this bill I shall be very brief. I should like to pay tribute to my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) for the very complete manner in which he handled the question of a constitutional amendment.
I am sure the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate must be convinced now that no matter what scheme they bring in, providing it is one of their own plans, it will need a constitutional amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We were very disappointed with his speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sure you were.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It must have hurt.


William Moore Benidickson: Just a lawyer's argument.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The Minister of Justice referred to a discrepancy in the remarks made by the hon. member for Essex East who talked about people living in Windsor, working in the United States, and receiving pensions of $300 a month. I should like to point out that in tonight's Citizen, on page

Old Age Security Act
30, there is an article dealing with the United States social security system which states:
The contributory system provides for monthly pensions ranging from $40 to $127 for single persons and from $60 to $191 for married couples.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nonsense.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have a booklet in my hand entitled "Your Social Security, Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance Benefits under the Social Security Law of the United States." It agrees with the article to the effect that single persons may reach a pension of $127 a month and that two surviving children may receive $191 a month. Indeed it goes so far as to come up with a maximum family payment of $254 a month, which was the figure quoted by the Minister of Justice.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Read the Clark report at page 324.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to point out that had there been a Liberal government in power since 1957, at which time the Conservative government increased pensions by $9 a month, recipients of old age pensions during the four years ending November, and carrying on through December and January, 1962, would have received $468 less than they did under this government. It is a simple matter of mathematics.
The hon. member for Essex East even had the nerve to suggest that the Old Age Security Act in Canada is the only one of its kind in the world, as it has no means test. New Zealand and Sweden had universal no means test pensions long before Canada adopted its old age security provisions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You do not even know the act, I am sorry to say.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The Minister of Justice also covered the ground in dealing with where the Minister of Finance stood. In closing I would simply like to say that the hon. member for Essex East gave a very entertaining speech and in my humble opinion he should have been where the hon. member for Quebec West suggested he should be yesterday, and that is on the stage. I shall see he gets a job at the Stratford Shakespearean festival if he cares to come there.


Mr. Churchill:: Do not ruin the festival.


William Moore Benidickson: In "As You Like It."


Jay Waldo Monteith: The member for Essex East talked about good faith. I would suggest that this government has shown better faith with the people of Canada since June 10, 1957, than any other government in the history of Canada to the present time.


William Moore Benidickson: Are we going to get a budget?


Mr. Speaker:: I would point out to hon. members that the minister is still speaking.


William Moore Benidickson: But, sir, we want to know whether we are going to get a budget.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is encouraging to get such applause, which means I must be correct. There is one thing I wish to point out to the hon. member for Assiniboia. He said needy old age pensioners have been waiting for this for a long time. However, they have been waiting a lot longer in Saskatchewan than in any other province in Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not true.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is simply because the Saskatchewan government did not give the old age pensioners in that province a sufficient supplemental allowance of which, of course, the federal government pays 50 per cent.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder would the minister be prepared to place on the record the supplemental amount paid in each province. I think those figures will dispose of his statement.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Up until April, 1961, the grand total in Saskatchewan was $2.5. It is more today, I admit. Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) suggested we should have an objective approach. That is all we have. It is the most objective approach of any government in the history of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Jay Waldo Monteith: At the next sitting of the house.


Murdo William Martin: Can we not pass it right away and get this money to the old age pensioners?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Murdo William Martin: In giving us the business of the house for tomorrow would the minister tell us if we shall have a dissolution tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We shall take the third reading of this particular bill tomorrow, followed by the three resolutions standing in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Murdo William Martin: It is too bad we
could not have passed all these today.


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


[Stage Direction]
Halifax, January 19, 1962. Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I wish to acknowledge your letter of January 17 regarding a proposed addition to section 94A of the British North America Act.
I will consult my colleagues regarding the proposal and write you further shortly.
Yours sincerely,
R. L. Stanfield
Rt. Hon. John G. Diefenbaker Prime Minister of Canada House of Commons Ottawa, Canada.
Regina, January 19, 1962.
The Right Honourable J. G. Diefenbaker, Q.C., Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister:
Thank you for your letter of January 17 in which you propose an amendment to the British North America Act to replace the present section 94A. My colleagues and I will be pleased to consider the request contained in your letter and I will write you further at the earliest possible moment.
Yours sincerely,
W. S. Lloyd

[Stage Direction]
Winnipeg, January 24, 1962.
My dear Prime Minister:
I have your letter of January 17 in which you ask for the concurrence of the province of Manitoba in a request for an amendment to section 94A of the British North America Act to permit the inclusion in a contributory graduated old age pension plan of benefits payable under certain circumstances to widows and children and to contributors who become disabled before they are old.
The matter will be brought before the Manitoba legislature at its forthcoming session by seeking the concurrence of the house in a resolution approving of the amendment.
Yours sincerely,
Duff Roblin.

[Stage Direction]
Edmonton, January 24, 1962.
Right Honourable J. G. Diefenbaker,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister:
I wish to acknowledge your letter of January 17 relative to the amending of section 94A of the British North America Act.
Careful consideration has been given to your request. The government of Alberta is prepared to concur in the proposed wording of section 94A as stated on page 2 of your letter of January 17.
Yours very truly,
E. C. Manning Premier.
(Translation):
OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER Province of Quebec, January 24, 1962
The Right Honourable John Diefenbaker,

[Stage Direction]
Prime Minister of Canada,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Ont.
My dear Prime Minister,
I have submitted to my colleagues your letter of January 17, in which you suggest that the constitution be amended to enable the parliament of Canada to make laws in relation to
(b)	"pensions and other benefits incidental to, or conducive to the better operation and administration of, a scheme of old age pensions".
You will readily appreciate that we cannot come to a decision until accurate details of the pension scheme you intend to introduce are made available to us. We certainly could not submit to the legislative assembly a proposition such as the one you are now making without being able to explain clearly and fully what the proposed legislation is about.
You will no doubt recall that, before suggesting to the provinces the constitutional amendment made in 1951 with the consent of parliament and of all the legislatures, a joint committee of the Senate and the
[Stage Direction]
House of Commons, of which I was joint chairman, had made a comprehensive study of the matter at public hearings. On the basis of the committee's report, the federal government was then in a position to make clearcut proposals to the provinces. When they accepted the suggested constitutional amendment the provinces, knew exactly what measure the government was going to submit to parliament.
I sincerely believe it to be essential that your government supply the provinces with the details of your plan before asking them to propose to their legislatures that they agree to a constitutional amendment.
Only when all the required information is available to us will it be possible for the Quebec government to have some opinion on the desirability of the proposed amendment.
I intend to table copies of your letter and of my reply in the Legislative Assembly next Tuesday.
Yours sincerely, (signed) Jean Lesage
(Text):

[Stage Direction]
Halifax, January 26, 1962. Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
Further to my letter of January 19 regarding a proposed addition to section 94A of the British North America Act, I have now had an opportunity to consult with my colleagues in the government.
The government of Nova Scotia has no objection to the proposed amendment.
Yours sincerely,
R. L. Stanfield.
Rt. Hon. John G. Diefenbaker Prime Minister of Canada Ottawa, Canada.

[Stage Direction]
Prince Edward Island, January 29th, 1962.
The Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister:
In answer to your letter of January 17, the government of this province is in agreement that a request for an amendment to section 94A of the British North America Act in the form designated in your letter should be approved.
Yours sincerely,
W. R. Shaw, Premier.
Regina, February 2nd, 1962. The Right Honourable J. G. Diefenbaker, Q.C., Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister:
I am pleased to advise you that my colleagues and I concur with the federal government's proposed amendment to section 94A of the British North America Act as outlined in your letter of January 17, 1962. I assure you that the government of Saskatchewan will support any genuine effort on the part of the federal government to improve the Canadian social security system.
While we concur with the proposed amendment, I feel obliged to point out that our legal advisers have expressed some doubts about its wording. Their concern is that the proposed section 94A could be interpreted by the courts as being too narrow to cover a contributory graduated old age pension plan which would include pensions to widows and children and to contributors who become disabled before they are old.
If the government of Canada wishes to discuss in more detail Saskatchewan's reservations about the wording of the proposed amendment, we are prepared to do so at any time.
Yours sincerely,
W. S. Lloyd.
(Translation):
Ottawa, February 3, 1962. The Honourable Jean Lesage, P.C., M.P.P.,
Premier of Quebec,
Parliament Buildings,
Quebec City, Quebec.
My dear Premier:
I have considered the request in your letter of January 24 for more precise details of the pension plan we would ask parliament to establish under the extended powers we are proposing should be granted to parliament in section 94A of the British North America Act. You say you would not place before the legislature a proposal to amend the constitution without explicit details of the proposed legislation to be enacted by parliament after the constitutional amendment is made.
You and the premiers of the other provinces have already been informed of the essential feature that we wish to include in such legislation which requires an amendment to the British North America Act. The amendment is not one that diminishes in any way the powers of the provincial legislatures, for it would provide that no law passed under it would affect the operation of any provincial law relating to the same subjects.

Under the amendment we are proposing, parliament would be granted a slightly more extensive jurisdiction, to deal with old age pensions in a way that will also take account of the needs of widows and children and disabled persons. We are not proposing here the exercise of delegated legislative power or a joint dominion-provincial plan.
It is a recognized constitutional principle that a provincial legislature does not take responsibility for the explicit details of the terms in which parliament would use the powers given it by an amendment. Indeed the whole purpose of the amendment is to enable parliament to take that responsibility itself.
In the circumstances, therefore, I feel it would be improper for the government of Canada to submit for the approval of a provincial government and legislature the details of legislation which it is contemplated parliament would enact following such amendment.
I hope that you will give further consideration to the request contained in my letter of January 17, as many persons in all parts of Canada are asking for the benefits of the legislation which would follow this constitutional change and which, as I see it, would in no way affect the rights of provinces.
Yours sincerely,
John G. Diefenbaker
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 7, 1962