1962-02-05

Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East) moved: the first reading of Bill No. C-52, to amend the Expropriation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



WAR MEASURES ACT


Paul Joseph James Martin: the first reading of Bill No. C-53, to amend the War Measures Act.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Explain.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: This bill seeks to extend the War Measures Act by bringing it into a position consistent with the provisions of the bill of rights. The bill is predicated upon the fact that the Prime Minister indicated almost a year and three quarters ago that the War Measures Act would be amended to bring it into conformity with the bill of rights. The government not having taken the initiative it assured us it would, I have done so.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a further explanation of the bill he may feel quite free to finish it, but not to debate the matter.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. Argue: 1.	What is the role or interest of the government with regard to the Ottawa red feather campaign?
2.	During the said campaign in the fall of 1961, was any written request sent out by or for the vice-chief or the acting vice-chief of the air staff asking those who had not yet contributed to assess their ability to do so?
3.	If so, was this request made with the approval of the Minister of National Defence?
Answer by: Mr. Balcer:
1.	As an employer, the government participates in the red feather campaign by providing organization and staff in each department and crown agency for the public service division of the Ottawa community chest to assist in the campaign.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.


PURCHASES AND DISPOSALS, MILK, BUTTER AND CHEESE
Mr. Boulanger: 1.	What have been the monthly purchases and diposals by the government with respect to skim milk powder, whole milk powder, butter, and cheese for the years 1960 and 1961?
2.	Have any dairy products been donated to UNICEF or other social organizations for the years 1960 and 1961 and, if so, (a) what products (b) what quantity?
Answer by: Mr. Charllon:
1.	(a) Dry Skim Milk
Million Pounds Purchases 1960	1961
January	
February	
March	
April	,
May	 ,.
June	
July	
August	
September	
October	
November	
December	
1.	(b) Dry Whole Milk
Million Pounds Purchases 1960	1961
..	1.1
2.3 4.5 2.8 4.1 2.7
2.3
2.4
January	
February	
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August	
September . ...
October	
November . . . . December	
Disposals 1960 1961
0.5
Disposals 1960 1961
1.7 2.2 4.1 1.6 6.4
2.8

	Questions			
(c) Butter				
	Million Pounds			
	Purchases		Disposals	
1960	1961	1960	1961January .	.... 0.07	0.1	9.1	5.9February	
0.06	0.2	9.0	7.1March ...	... 0.02	0.5	6.3	4.8April ....	.... 4.0	3.0	0.6	0.3May 	.... 2.6	2.8	0.05June	... 14.6	16.0	July 	... 19.8	22.1	August . .	... 16.1	22.3	0.1	September	... 8.2	12.5	0.5	0.1October ..	... 4.7	8.3	3.2	1.1November	... 0.7	3.2	6.9	4.0December	... 0.1	1.1	9.3	7.9(d) Cheese	Million Pounds	Purchases	Disposals	1960	1961	1960	1961January .	.. 0.03	0.1	0.3February	March ...	April	0.04	May	... 2.4	1.0	0.04June ....	... 0.8	2.0	July 	... 0.6	0.7	1.9	2.3August ..	... 0.6	0.4	0.1September	... 0.5	1.0	October ..	. . .	0.9November	0.1	2.6December	0.1	2.	Yes.(a)	Dry whole milk Dry skim milk(b)	Dry whole milk (Million pounds)1960-	18.81961-	2.5
Dry skim milk (Million pounds)
1960-	Nil
1961-	0.8


* CANADIAN CURRENCY DISCOUNT, YARMOUTH-BAR HARBOR FERRY
Mr. Deschaleleis: 1. Is it a fact that Canadian currency is discounted on the basis of the par value of the American dollar on the Yarmouth-Bar Harbor
ferry, the Bluenose?
2.	If so, have instructions been issued by the Canadian National Railways that this practice be followed?


Mr. Balcer:: Mr. Speaker, the management of Canadian National Railways advise that the answer to part 1 is no, and part 2 is therefore not applicable.


FISHERIES EXPENDITURES, MIRAMICHI ESTUARY
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	What is the total amount of money expended by the Department of Fisheries in the Miramichi estuary, river and branches, each year for the period 1955-1961?
2.	What are the amounts spent each year during this period for research, protection, inspection, and administration?
Answer by: Mr. MacLean (Queens):
1. 1955-56
1956-	57
1957-	58
1958-	59
1959-	60
1960-	61

1955-56	1956-57
	$	$
Research 	
Protection-(a)	. 3,700.00	4,150.00land service 	. 141,493.97	146,653.42water patrol 	40,120.09	40,426.60Fish culture 	25,433.88	35,336.76Inspection-(b) 	
Administration-(c)	46,453.26	59,918.961957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61$	$	$	$7,400.00	3,750.00	3,900.00	4,100.00149,331.15	157,870.18	156,961.76	166,754.1339,739.00	32,942.82	47,031.13	54,792.3637,821.46	40,475.26	41,745.90	52,150.5169,542.82	63,150.64	67,284.15	70,166.10
(a) Land service shows expenditure for (b) These figures cover inspection district fisheries district No. 7-Northumberland, No. 4A-the eastern and northern shores of Gloucester and Restigouche counties. It is not the province. It is not feasible to segregate feasible to segregate figures for Miramichi figures for Miramichi area, estuary and watershed. Water patrol shows
expenditure on patrol vessels generally as- (c) There is no expenditure in Miramichi signed to Miramichi area.	area falling under this heading.


CANADIAN MADE DESTROYER ESCORTS
Mr. Malheson: 1.	Have our new Canadian made destroyer escorts any real surface or shore bombardment capability?
2.	Does their armament provide defence against high speed jet aircraft?
3.	Is their speed sufficient to make them effective against the latest submarine?
Answer by: Mr. Chambers:
1 and 2. These ships are equipped with the latest multi-purpose gun available which has both a surface and anti-aircraft capability.
3.	Their speed is superior to the latest conventional submarine. The nuclear submarine has a speed advantage over that of the surface ship but speed is not the only means of the surface ship dealing with submarines.


* CANADIAN EMIGRANTS TO U.S.
Mr. Malheson: 1.	How many persons left Canada to reside in the United States in a working capacity, each year from 1956 to 1961?
2.	What was the proportionate breakdown of occupations in each of these years?
2.	Occupational Group
Professional, technical and kindred workers	
Craftsmen, foremen and kindred workers	
Clerical and kindred workers	
Operatives and kindred workers	
Labourers (except farm and mine)	
Service workers (except private household)	
Sales workers	
Managers, officials, proprietors (except farm) .... Farmers, farm labourers, managers and foremen .. Private household workers	
Total	
The above data were derived from semi-annual reports of the immigration and naturalization service, United States department of justice, Washington, D.C.
3 and 4. This information is not available in the department.


*LIST OF INGREDIENTS IN CIGARETTES
Mr. Herridge: Has the Department of National Health and Welfare given any consideration to regulations that would require cigarette manufacturers to list and give full particulars of the percentage of all the ingredients of their cigarettes, similar to that required for patent medicines?


Mr. Monleilh (Perth):: My department has considered the question as to whether a statement of the ingredients of cigarettes can be required to be shown on labels of packages of cigarettes. However, since cigarettes and other such products of tobacco do not fall into any of the classes of products over which authority is provided by legislation administered by my department, it is not possible for us to make the proposed requirement.
Questions
3.	What number in each year were college graduates?
4.	What proportion of these 4migr6s were in the age group 20 to 40?


Mr. Thrasher:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the amount of statistical information contained in the answers to the several parts of this question, I wonder whether the answer might be taken as read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the answer be incorporated at this point in Hansard without being read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer above referred to is as follows:]
1.	No. of persons leaving Canada to reside in the United States in a working capacity
Year	No. of persons
1956		 22,200
1957		 25,800
1958		 19,200
1959		 21,300
1960		 24,900
1961	(first six	months)	11,0001956	1957	1958	1959	1960	1961%	%	%	%	%	1st 6 mos.24.4	24.8	25.6	26.9	23.1	21.520.1	20.5	17.4	17.2	10.0	19.119.8	21.1	20.5	20.0	19.8	19.19.1	8.8	8.5	9.2	10.0	10.56.3	6.0	7.7	6.4	8.4	8.15.2	5.6	6.7	6.4	6.5	7.75.1	4.9	5.2	5.1	5.3	5.84.7	4.6	4.8	5.0	4.6	5.03.0	1.9	1.9	1.8	1.4	1.22.3	1.8	1.7	2.0	1.9	2.0100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0


* TELEVISION SERVICE, KOOTENAY WEST CONSTITUENCY
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 92*-Mr. Herridge:
1.	Have any surveys been made of the need for C.B.C. television in the electoral district of Kootenay West and, if so, what are the results of these surveys, and the areas or communities so covered?
2.	Has any decision been made to establish such facilities in Kootenay West; and, if so, when is it expected that such facilities will be installed, in what communities, and covering what areas?
Mr. Lambert:: I am advised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Yes, surveys were conducted in Trail, Nelson, Castlegar, Proctor and Balfour areas. C.B.C. stations are operating in Trail and Nelson.
2.	Further study is being made at present of the Castlegar area. With regard to Proctor and Balfour, the investigation reveals that the costs involved are very high in comparison to other areas of Canada also without

Questions
television. However, a study is continuing in received from Quebec united fishermen by an attempt to find a less costly method of letter dated December 8, 1961. No action so providing C.B.C. service.	far has been taken.


* TRADE CONFERENCES IN CANADA
Mr. Bourdages: 1.	How many trade conferences have been held across Canada, and in what centres?
2.	What has been the total attendance?
3.	Is it correct that the next conference will be held in Montreal?
4.	If so, how many speeches will be in French, how many in English, and will there be translations?


Mr. Churchill:: Eleven regional trade promotion conferences have been held in conjunction with the provincial trade authorities at the following centres from coast to coast: Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, London, Toronto, Kingston, Saint John, New Brunswick, Halifax, Charlottetown and St. John's, Newfoundland.
2.	The total registered attendance at these 11 conferences has been 3,209 persons, representing 1,825 industrial firms.
3.	Yes, on February 14, 1962.
4.	Speeches to be made by departmental officials at the Montreal conference will be in English and French. Most speakers are bilingual and will be speaking in both languages. Each speech, as delivered, will be translated simultaneously into English or French, and mimeographed copies of speeches by officials will be available in both official languages.


* FISHERIES-EXEMPTIONS OF DRAGGERS
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since June 1, 1961, has the Minister of Fisheries, pursuant to subsection (3) (a) of section 55 of the Fisheries Act, by order, exempted any class of dragger or trawler from the operation of subsection (3) of the said section; and, if so, (a) upon what date or dates were the said orders made (b) what class or classes of dragger or trawler were so exempted by each such order and (c) what is the total number of boats so exempted?
2.	Has any person applied to, or requested, the minister to order an exemption pursuant to the said subsection (3) (a); and, if so, with respect to each such person so applying or requesting, what was (a) his name and address (b) the date (c) the number of boats covered by the application or request, and (d) the disposition thereof?


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: The answer to the first part of this question is no. The answer to the second part is as follows.
No applications by any persons in respect of any boat or boats have been made, but representations have been made by the Fisheries Council of Canada by letter dated October 23, 1961, requesting that action be taken to allow large trawlers to fish inside the 12 mile limit. A similar request has been


* SPECIAL PERMITS RESPECTING SMALL DRAGGERS
Mr. Howard: Since January 1, 1955, have any special permits been issued by the Minister of Fisheries under subsection (3) of section 55 of the Fisheries Act exempting small draggers operated by inshore fishermen from the provision of the said subsection (3); and, if so, (a) how many such permits have been issued, and (b) how many are currently in effect?


John Angus MacLean: The answer to the first part of the question is yes, 2,133; and to part (b), 417.


*PRINCE RUPERT ELEVATOR-WORKING CONDITIONS
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1961, has the board of grain commissioners directed the general manager of the Canadian government elevators to examine the working conditions at the Prince Rupert elevator; and, if so, has such an examination taken place, and what was discovered as a result thereof?
2.	What action, if any, is contemplated with respect to the discoveries?


Mr. Jorgenson:: The answers are as follows.
1.	Yes. An inspection was made and it was discovered the washroom, lunchroom and locker facilities were inadequate.
2.	The Canadian government elevators have recommended an amount be included in the
1962-63 estimates to provide for the installation of proper washroom and locker facilities and for a general clean-up of the lunchroom. Subject to funds being made available, these improvements are to be made.


* CENSUS STATISTICS
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since the completion of the decennial census for 1961, has any municipality or province raised any objection or complaint to the effect that the census for the municipality or province was incomplete, incorrect, or insufficient; and, if so, what are the details of each such complaint?
2.	As a result of these complaints, what action was taken in each case; and if such action, in part, was to arrange for additions to the original population figures, what differences resulted in each case?
3.	Was each such subsequent action, as referred to in part 2 hereof, satisfactory to the complaining
party?
4.	As a result of any such subsequent action or from experiences derived from the taking of the census, is any action planned to ensure that a more accurate population count of municipalities will be made in future census-taking?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is fairly lengthy. It is ready, and if the house would accept it without my reading it I would be very grateful.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreed that the answer be taken as read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
1. The final counts of population from the 1961 census are not yet available for any municipality or province. Preliminary figures for individual municipalities were released last fall as part of the normal procedures of taking the census, in order to obtain the comments of these municipalities regarding the preliminary figure as it related to their particular city, town, village, township, etc. These figures, as stated in the published reports, were not intended to be the complete count, since they do not include some persons temporarily absent from their usual homes at the time of the census.
Thus, comments regarding	the preliminary census counts were invited by the dominion bureau of statistics from the municipal officials of some 4,500 municipalities across Canada. This enabled the bureau to explain to the municipalities the census rules of enumeration and procedures which in some cases vary from the methods used to compile local counts or estimates. It also gave the bureau the opportunity to make investigations in the relatively few cases where there was some disagreement before the census figures become final.
1	would like to express my personal appreciation to the municipal officials across Canada who have co-operated so wholeheartedly in this matter. Final counts of population for Canada and the provinces should be available around the end of this month. Final counts for individual municipalities are expected to be released in the immediately following months.
2	and 3. Since the final counts of population for individual municipalities are not yet available, it is not possible to show the differences between the preliminary and final counts.
4.	There is no evidence to indicate that when the final counts of the 1961 census become available there will be any significant deficiencies. The dominion bureau of statistics continually strives to improve on its census methods and procedures from one census to the next. You can be assured that the planning for the next census will be no exception, and a great deal of study and research will be given to the 1961 census results in preparation for the following censuses.


CHARTERED BANK LOANS, SMALL BUSINESSES
Mr. Racine: 1. Have chartered hanks prepared, in accordance with subsection (1) of section 19 of the regulations under the Small Businesses Loans Act, reports
Orders for Returns
on the number of loans made, and the amount thereof, since the act came into force?
2. If so, what are, by provinces, the number and amount of such loans?
Answer by: Mr. Bell (Carleton):
1.	Yes.
2.	Since inception January 19, 1961
to November 30, 1961
Number Amount
British Columbia 	... 361	$3,054,064.65Alberta 	... 256	1,983,063.85Saskatchewan 	... 197	1,333,485.01Manitoba	... 151	1,161,704.35Ontario 	... 923	7,479,743.59Quebec	... 625	6,369,638.45New Brunswick 	. . . 76	608,407.75Nova Scotia	. . . 95	794,405.00Prince Edward Island .	. . . 30	194,332.80Newfoundland	. . . 23	181,576.00Total 	. 2,737	$23,160,421.45


SMALL BUSINESS LOANS, 1961
Mr. Mcllraith: 1.	How many loans were made under the Small Businesses Loans Act in the year 1961?
2.	What is the total amount of such loans?
Answer by: Mr. Bell (Carleton):
1.	2,737
2.	$23,160,421.45
For the period January 19, 1961, the date on which the Small Businesses Loans Act came into force, to November 30, 1961, the latest date for which figures are available.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Argue: 1.	Has the government had any discussions with Dr. Norman Z. Alcock concerning the formation of a Canadian peace research institute?
2.	If so, did Dr. Alcock make any request for aid?
3.	If so has any decision been made in this regard?
4.	If so, what is the nature of the decision?
^SURVIVAL TRAINING COURSES



PERSONNEL


Mr. Pitman: 1.	How many of the men who (a) started (b) completed or (c) were rejected for the first survival training course, were unemployed?
2.	How many of the men who (a) started (b) completed or (c) were rejected for the first survival training course, were on municipal welfare?
3.	How many of the men who (a) started (b) completed or (c) were rejected for the first survival training course, were married?
4.	How many of those who were married and completed the course were also unemployed?

Orders for Returns
5.	How many of the men who completed the first
survival training course have been recruited into (a) militia (b) regular army?



OTTAWA-DISPOSAL OP CROWN LAND

Miss LaMarsh: 1.	Was any land in the vicinity of Bank street and Riverside drive, Ottawa (lots 18, 19 and 20, junction Gore, Gloucester township), sold by the crown or Crown Assets Disposal Corporation since January 1, 1959?
2.	If so, what quantity, at what price, and to
whom?
3.	Was the land advertised for sale and, if so, through what media?
4.	By what method was this land sold?



*AVRO STEEL OPERATIONS, SYDNEY, N.S.

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Has the government of Canada received any representations that it use its good offices to ensure that A. V. Roe diversify and expand their steel operations in the city of Sydney?
2.	If so, has the government taken any action on this request?



MR. GODFREY, VANCOUVER

Mr. Regier: 1.	Is a certain Mr. Godfrey living in or about Vancouver in the employ of either the Department of Justice or the Department of Citizenship and Immigration?
2.	If so, what are his particular responsibilities?



PUBLIC WORKS SHIPS AND DREDGES, B.C.

Mr. Regier: 1.	What are the names of each of the ships and dredges being operated by the Department of Public Works in British Columbia?
2.	On which of these are meals supplied to the employees?
3.	How many men are usually employed on each of these vessels?
4.	What was the cost of food purchased for the men on each of these vessels in the latest calendar or fiscal year for which statistics are available?
5.	When was the last audit or inspection made of such food purchases?
6.	What happens to food purchased for weekend meals when the employees are off the vessel?
7.	Who are the captains or masters on each of these vessels?
8.	Do any of these named individuals own a
grocery store selling food supplies to the government of Canada?
9.	What if any, irregularities in regard to the use and purchasing of food supplies referred to above have been discovered within a period of the last five years, and, if there were irregularities found, what action has been taken?
10.	When last was there an investigation made as to the quality of meals served to the employees?
11. From what suppliers, and the amount in each case, was food purchased for the C.G.S. Essington for the latest year of which records are available, and who are the owners of the business firms involved?
12.	Are any of these owners employed by the government of Canada?
13.	On which of the above vessels is the practice followed of having the majority of employees away from the vessel on weekends?



* PICKET LINE CROSSINGS BY FEDERAL VEHICLES, B.C.

Mr. Howard: 1.	Since December 1,	1961, has any vehicle
owned by the government or any department, agency, or branch thereof crossed any picket line in British Columbia established by the retail, wholesale and department store union (AFL-CIO/CLC) against Taylor, Pearson and Carson Corporation; and, if so, was this done with the knowledge and consent of the government, or of the department, agency, or branch involved?
2.	Are any steps being taken to prevent a recurrence of this situation; and, if so, what are they?



FEDERAL WORK PROJECTS, NORTHWESTERN QUEBEC

Mr. Mariel: 1.	Have works near Duparquet, in northwestern Quebec, at Hebecourt, Duparquet and Abitibi lakes or thereabout, ever been carried out by the federal government from 1949 to 1957?
2.	If so, (a) by whom were such works requested, and by whom were they recommended to the federal government then in office (b) who was the foreman in charge of each particular project (c) what was the total cost of each project (d) what wages were paid to each foreman and other persons employed at such works (e) who were the suppliers of materials, equipment, or other services of any kind at each place, and what amount was paid to each supplier?



CLEANING OPERATIONS, VILLENEUVE AND CHAPLEAU COUNTIES, QUEBEC

Mr. Martel: 1.	Have cleaning operations, on the Senneville river and the Small Senneville river, in the counties of Villeneuve and Chapleau, ever been carried out by the federal government between 1949 and 1957?
2.	If so, (a) by whom were such cleaning operations requested, and by whom were they recommended to the federal government then in office (b) who was the foreman in charge of each particular project (c) what was the total cost of each project (d) what wages were paid to each foreman and other persons employed at such works (e) who were the suppliers of materials, equipment, or other services of any kind at each place, and what amount was paid to each supplier?



WHARF CONSTRUCTION AND CLEANING OPERATIONS, MACAMIC LAKE, QUE.

Mr. Martel: 1.	Has construction of a wharf at Macamic lake, in the county of Chapleau, or cleaning operations near Macamic lake, or in the vicinity of the town of Macamic and the municipality of Royal-Roussil-lon, ever been carried out by the federal government between 1949 and 1957?
2.	If so, (a) by whom were such works requested, and by whom were they recommended to the federal government then in office (b) who was the foreman in charge of each particular project (c) what was the total cost of each project (d) what wages were paid to each foreman and other persons employed at such works (e) who were the suppliers of materials, equipment, or other services of any kind at each place, and what amount was paid to each supplier?



* ATLANTIC CITIZENS CONVENTION, PARIS

Mr. Herridge: 1.	Who Initiated the Atlantic citizens convention held in Paris in January?
2.	What was the purpose of this convention?
3.	Who appointed the members of the Canadian delegation?
4.	What were their names and whom did they represent?
5.	How was this delegation financed?
6.	What was the total cost to the government of Canada, if any?
7.	What were the recommendations of the convention?
8.	What action does the Canadian government intend to take with respect to these recommendations?



FORESTRY AGREEMENTS, QUEBEC

Mr. Racine: 1.	Has the government of the province of Quebec signed any agreements since June 30, 1958, concerning joint projects with respect to forests, with any of the federal Departments of Forestry, Agriculture, or Northern Affairs and National Resources?
2.	If so, which joint projects are involved, and what amounts have been paid to the province?



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will he table the letter from the premier of Quebec to himself in connection with the proposed conference on pensions inasmuch as he has tabled the letter from himself to the premier of Ontario, which is to be found at page 76 of Hansard?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on January 30 the Leader of the Opposition asked me if replies had been received from any of the premiers. The answer was that a number of replies had been received and that they would be tabled. Six premiers have replied; four have not. We intend to table all replies at the same time. I might point out that the premiers of Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Quebec and Prince Edward Island have replied so far.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder whether we could have copies of those letters now so they could be used in the debate that is about to begin.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be well to table them all at one time. I really see no reason for tabling them in an escalated manner.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Prime Minister a supplementary question. In view of the fact that we are going to
Inquiries of the Ministry debate a measure involving old age pensions, does the Prime Minister not think that before the debate gets under way we should have these letters so we can consider their application to the matters we will be considering later today?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the resolution is before the house today. I will give consideration to tabling the letters prior to the bill being brought before the house, but at the moment I would not like to have them brought forward in, shall I say, an incomplete manner. I should like to have the viewpoint of the Canadian premiers as a whole, and I am sure the opposition is not totally wanting in having a copy of the letter to which reference has been made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has acknowledged that he has now received letters from a number of provincial governments. These are now in his possession. There is no difficulty involving consent of the provinces, and surely it is within our privileges to demand of the Prime Minister the production of those letters forthwith for purposes of the debate this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Apart from an order of the house there is no privilege to require papers of the government, and the rules provide the procedure by which papers may be ordered.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Douglas Jung (Vancouver Centre):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Before I do so, may I take this opportunity to wish all members of the house a happy new year. In the event that certain members may think I am carrying on the celebration from last December 31, Mr. Speaker, I should say by way of explanation that today is the Chinese new year, and I think the Chinese across Canada would like me to say to all members of the house, "Gung hay fat choy".
I come now to my question. In view of the serious problem in Vancouver caused by air pollution from ships, can the Minister of Transport advise whether there have been any changes made in the proposed regulations governing that matter?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I think I express the sentiments of the whole house when I wish the hon. member and all his fellow Chinese Canadian
528	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry citizens a very happy new year. I am sorry that I cannot express those wishes in the language he uses so well.
In answer to the hon. member's question, I may say that at the last session of parliament the Canada Shipping Act was amended to empower the governor in council to make the necessary regulations to prevent air pollution from ships in Canadian waters. Proposed regulations have been drafted and have been under study. Certain modifications have been suggested and these are at present receiving consideration.
Because of the international aspects of the problem, particularly in the great lakes area, the proposed regulations have been forwarded to the United States authorities in the hope that federal agencies of both countries may be able to produce regulations which will be satisfactory to each.



REQUEST FOR DATE OF FINAL DURUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister give the house any information as to when the final payment for Durum wheat may be made? I ask this because of the cash shortage on the prairies and the fact that Durum has been obtaining a very ready sale.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: I regret that I have not that information with me, but I will secure it and try to answer the hon. member tomorrow.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Is he in a position to report on the survey which he stated on January 24 his department was undertaking on the effects of the storm in Newfoundland in December which destroyed private property belonging to fishermen?


John Angus MacLean: I want to thank the hon. member for Trinity-Conception for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. A detailed report of damage arising out of storms in mid-December has been received from the St. John's office of the Department of Fisheries. The 

report covers the entire east coast from cape Race to cape Norman and from cape Norman to Flower's cove. Damage in varying degrees is reported from many settlements with greatest severity in Hamilton sound, Bonavista south, Trinity south and the Hibbs cove area.
In all cases the damage would appear to be considerably less than originally reported. Although in some instances individual fishermen suffered substantial loss, in no case does it appear to reach general disaster proportions. In situations of this kind, any application for assistance should be directed to the provincial government. If the magnitude of such claims is sufficiently great, the province may wish to submit the problem for federal consideration.
In instances where federal government facilities were damaged, repairs will be proceeded with as quickly as possible. Steps are currently taken to secure material requirements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister and his department give consideration to the possibility, in some of those settlements where fishermen lost slips of their own and are not in a position to in-stal new ones, of putting in small community slipways to meet the problem? I am not asking for an immediate answer, but merely for consideration.


John Angus MacLean: I will be very pleased indeed to take this suggestion into consideration. As a matter of fact it has been considered to some extent already by the officials of my department.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question relating to base metal production in this country at the present time. I should like to ask the Prime Minister or one of his ministers who is responsible, what effect if any they can discern of the statement of policy President Kennedy announced last week with regard to stockpiling base metal, and what repercussions it may have here?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is obviously a question that requires some consideration, and it will be taken as notice.

Inquiries of the Ministry
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE	AGRICULTURE



ADVISORY COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) asked a question with respect to the report of the unemployment insurance advisory committee. I wish to inform him that the last report I received from the unemployment insurance advisory committee for transmittal to the governor in council was dated July 18, 1961. The committee last met on July 18, 1961 and this was the report of that meeting, which I received on July 21. That report was tabled on September 7, the day this house reconvened.



RETENTION OF BENEFITS DURING CIVIL DEFENCE COURSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Pitman) asked a question respecting benefits for people who are taking civil defence courses. I want to say to him that I did receive a letter from the co-ordinator of the emergency measures organization at Peterborough suggesting that a formal directive be issued to unemployment insurance offices to authorize the payment of unemployment insurance benefit to claimants attending training courses at the civil defence college in Arnprior to qualify as instructors in survival measures.
I referred this to the unemployment insurance commission, who point out that under section 54(2) of the Unemployment Insurance Act a claimant for benefit has to be available for work, and that this means he must be ready and willing to accept suitable employment immediately. A person attending a course away from his home area, as would be the case here, is unable to fulfil this condition and consequently benefit cannot be continued to be paid to him.
Under section 57(3) of the Unemployment Insurance Act the commission may direct a claimant to a course of instruction, in which case the claimant's availability is maintained. A course of instruction in this context, however, is one whose purpose is to enhance a claimant's opportunities for employment, and unfortunately the course given by the civil defence college does not fall into this category.



FRUIT, VEGETABLES AND HONEY ACT    INQUIRY AS TO REPEAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Agriculture on behalf of some of my constituents who say they smell a rat and see it hovering in the air and want an opportunity to nip it in the bud.
Is the government giving consideration to the repeal of the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act and incorporating the provisions of this act with amendments in the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, this is a question of which I have had no notice. I think the hon. member will realize that I am in no position to answer it without consultation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I must explain that I sent notice some time ago. There must have been a slip-up between my office and the minister's.
(Translation):



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister undertaken, orally or in writing, to secure for Quebecair Incorporated exclusive rights on flights between Sept lies and Quebec city?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, during discussions with Quebecair, I did undertake to ask T.C.A. to discontinue its service to Sept lies so that Quebecair could have exclusive rights on that route. After considering the matter, T.C.A. officials decided that they could not comply with that request under the circumstances.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, my question war worded as follows. Has the minister undertaken, orally or in writing, to secure from the authorities concerned that Quebecair be granted exclusive rights on flights between Sept lies and Quebec city?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember exactly what terms were used, but I made the decision known to Quebecair in writing.
530	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport.
Naturally, I cannot force him to answer my question but he still has not told us whether or not he had promised Quebecair officials the exclusive right to operate an air service between the two points in question. He merely replied that he had informed Quebecair of the T.C.A. decision. My question was directed to him personally and I wanted to know if he had promised Quebecair the exclusive right to operate flights between the two points in question.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to my previous reply.
(Text):



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has any member of the government received protests concerning the employment of the United States owned Pinkerton agency's guards, wearing this agency's United States uniform, including American eagle cap badges, etc., by shipyards receiving Canadian government contracts and subsidies from Canadian taxpayers, instead of members of the corps of commissionaires or employees of Canadian owned security firms?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of this question just as I was coming into the house. All I can remember offhand is that approximately a year ago I received some representation about a United States agency, but I am not certain whether this is the agency mentioned by the hon. member. I will inquire and let him know tomorrow.



WELCOME TO HON. MEMBER FOR LONDON ON RETURN AFTER ILLNESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am sure all hon. members of the house are very happy to see the hon. member for London, the Minister without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Halpenny), who has been ill, back in his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



MR. PICKERSGILL    REFERENCE TO REMARK IN DEBATE ON FEBRUARY 2

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask to have a correction made in the Hansard of last Friday at page 520, in the second column, lines 4 and 5. It reads:
-the only matters that would be brought before the committee of supply-
What I actually said was:
-the only matters that would be brought before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


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


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, that changes the whole tenor of the remark of the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: That is not what he said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It makes no change. This is an explanation in which the hon. member now indicates what he said, but of course the original text stands.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what I said.



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT


Jay Waldo Monteith: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act to increase the amount of monthly pension payable thereunder to $65 per month.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Martineau in the chair.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, in October, 1957 I had the honour of introducing in this house, on behalf of the present government, amendments to the Old Age Security Act which increased the level of benefit to $55 a month, lowered the residence requirement from 20 to 10 years, and increased the length of permissible temporary absence of pensioners from Canada from three to six months.
In May, 1960 the government placed before this house a further amendment to the Old Age Secutiry Act designed to extend and improve provisions for the senior citizens of Canada. Through this legislation, payment of old age security outside the country was made possible for the first time in our history. Persons entitled to old age security payments who leave Canada for a few months to escape the rigours of our winter climate now receive their pensions as they would at home. And

lor thousands of older persons who have left Canada to be with their sons or daughters, or who have taken up residence abroad because of health, or for other personal reasons, old age security benefits are now received on a permanent basis.
Today I am privileged on behalf of the government to introduce our third measure in little more than four years to improve still further the position of those members of the Canadian community who during their lifetime have contributed so much to the economic and social growth of our nation. The resolution now under consideration provides for a substantial increase in the monthly pension payment, from $55 to $65. This represents an increase of over 18 per cent in the basic benefit now being provided for more than 930,000 Canadians.
In providing for this increase in the universal old age pension, I would point out that there are two other important aspects relating to the adequacy of income maintenance provisions for Canada's senior citizens. The first relates to those persons for whom the $65 now being provided under old age security and old age assistance proves to be inadequate. As in the past, the federal government is prepared to share with the provinces half the cost of any additional assistance which is needed over and above the basic pension.
Under the federal unemployment assistance program through which this is achieved, 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 50 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.
The second aspect of making adequate income provision for our senior citizens relates to the question of contributory old age survivors and disability insurance which, as indicated in the speech from the throne, is to be placed before parliament if the provinces view with favour a suitable amendment to section 94(a) of the British North America Act.
The government's objective in this regard is clear cut. Our aim is to have an integrated program of old age income security which, in addition to the universal flat rate benefit, will provide a graduated benefit for all those who can reasonably afford further provision for their old age and who have not already undertaken it under private pension plans or other contractual agreements.
Old Age Security Act
Mr. Chairman, as you know, this government has, through federal-provincial conferences called by the Minister of Justice, been endeavouring to reach agreement on the question of having our constitution amended in Canada. This has been our hope, but we now feel it is necessary to ask the provinces to agree to an amendment to the B.N.A. Act so that we may proceed with our decisions in this regard.
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 program the government proposes to place before this house involves the provision of benefits to widows and to dependant children, and benefits to disabled persons under a social insurance plan. On the basis of advice from law officers of the crown the amendment to section 94A obtained by the previous government 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. It would be folly indeed to initiate the greatest undertaking Canada has ever made with respect to social insurance without having consulted with the provinces and without having ensured that the constitutional authority for such a program has been established.
The Liberal pension program says that the individual will have to choose between a pension at age 65 or a larger pension at age 70. In other words the contributory pension commences at age 70, but if you want an actuarially reduced benefit you can get it at any time after 65.
This point should be clearly understood by all and not glossed over. Under the program which this government plans to place before parliament if the provinces agree to the constitutional amendment, the age of commencement of benefit for those who have retired is 65. If anyone wishes to receive the benefit at an earlier age, an actuarially reduced benefit may be received as early as age 62. This is the provision available under the old age and survivors insurance program in the United States. In developing a program for

Old Age Security Act
Canada, this government considers this to be a feature which will meet the wishes of the Canadian people.
Retirement at age 65 is the common employment practice in Canada as in the United States. How could one envisage a contributory retirement plan that does not recognize these facts of life? This has been one of the main weaknesses of the existing old age security program, and one which we propose to correct. But we do not propose to do it by making those in the 65 to 69 age group second class citizens by suggesting that they should get less, as is proposed under the Liberal plan. If Canada is going to have a truly contributory plan, how can such a proposal as that be justified? The "six-buck" mentality, the hedging, is still here in this latest Liberal effort. But after hearing that the government's program commences at age 65 with a reduced benefit being available at age 62, as under the United States program, we will no doubt hear that the Liberal plan has been altered once again.
A few weeks ago under the Liberal plan married couples were to get $130 a month, or $65 a month each, and all this was to happen within one year of the passage of legislation. But when the government program of $130 a month benefit for a married couple became known, the Liberals suddenly decided that their proposal of only a few weeks earlier was not really enough, that the senior citizens of Canada had risen in their estimation and, as a result, married couples would now be offered $140 a month. And in announcing this sudden change of heart the hon. member for Essex East, at last week's Liberal conference, said the Liberals were spurning the cynical competition of seeking votes by making promises to the older people of our country. What could be more cynical than this remark?
We anticipate that in due course the government program will be placed before this house for consideration. At that time the benefit formulae, illustrations of what benefits will be payable for different persons, will be given. I can assure hon. members that the minimum benefit will be over and above the bare $65 a month, so that persons who have been in a relatively low income throughout their working life will receive a reasonable income from this source. At the same time there will be a spread in the amount of benefit which will relate the amount of benefit to previous contributions.
I can assure the committee, too, that the program will not take a long period before contributors will be eligible for benefits. We recognize that adequate benefits must be available not only for persons who are now 70 years of age and over, but also for the many persons who are now in their fifties
[Mr. Monteith (Perth).[
and sixties, and that determining when partial and full benefits must commence is an important consideration. The provision made in the Old Age Security Act will form part of a new and extended program so that those 70 years of age now and those reaching 70 in future years will continue to receive the flat rate universal payments.
In this context the amendment presently before the committee represents a simple, straightforward next step which can be considered now while efforts to bring into being this more complex and broader program are being pressed forward.
As far as the present pension increase is concerned, it will result in a substantial rise in expenditures under the Old Age Security Act. Current outlays under this program in this fiscal year are estimated at $606 million. The increase in expenditures arising from a growth in the number of persons in this age group will raise old age security payment costs to $623.3 million in 1962-63. The additional cost of the $10 a month increase in benefits will be about $113.4 million, bringing total outlays to some $737 million.
Mr. Chairman, the Old Age Security Act was passed about a decade ago. For almost six years after the introduction of this legislation no further legislative action was taken by the previous government to improve it or to provide a more adequate level of benefit than the $40 a month that had been in effect under the previous old age pension program. Then a meagre $6 a month was budgeted for our older people, even though the federal treasury had a substantial budgetary surplus.
With the present amendment, this government seeks the approval of parliament for its third effort in just over four years to improve the lot of pensioners across Canada. These added costs, I would emphasize, are not undertaken lightly. But having regard for the relationship between present day living costs and the income of the great bulk of our senior citizens, we feel sure that the people of Canada will endorse this step.
Together with similar actions we are proposing under the other assistance programs and our plans for contributory social insurance, this amendment represents a further phase in a sequence of legislative developments which we hope, with the co-operation of the provinces, will lead to an integrated and expanded program, a program capable of providing an increasing measure of social justice for all Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, it is my belief that the resolution now before the committee merits the support of all hon. members. I will, of course, have more to say when the bill is

brought down, but I think I have given sufficient explanation at this stage to justify approval in principle of this latest endeavour on behalf of the senior citizens of Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the amendment which has been introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare is one which we in the Liberal opposition will support. It is an amendment brought in to an act which was first placed on the statute books of this country by a Liberal government.
The minister has spoken of the subsequent resolutions providing for increases in disability pensions, old age assistance and blindness allowances. Of course, as the minister knows very well these, too, involved amendments to acts placed on the statute books of Canada by Liberal governments. In fact the hon. gentleman, as Minister of National Health and Welfare, is in the position of being able to say, on the eve of a general election, that whatever amendments he has brought forward to social welfare legislation have been to acts first proposed in this house by Liberal governments, often in the face of opposition to those measures by members of the Conservative party. Such measures include, of course, not only the universal old age security scheme introduced in the autumn of 1950, old age assistance, blindness allowances, disability pensions, the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act but, as well, family allowances.


Mr. Fulton:: The Liberal government did not introduce the hospital insurance act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Justice appears to forget that it was a Liberal government that placed before parliament the act out of which came the existing hospital insurance scheme. The hon. gentleman of course does not follow these developments too carefully, and perhaps he is unaware of that further contribution made by a Liberal administration.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon):: The Liberal
government did not bring that legislation into effect.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We in the Liberal party will support this resolution as we always have supported resolutions of this nature. We do not do so, however, because we feel the proposed increase is adequate. It is not adequate. We ourselves have put forward what we regard as an adequate increase in the basic pension. We have recommended a basic national minimum pension of $75 a month. We have done that in a responsible way, one that will commend itself to those who have to pay for these measures.
Old Age Security Act
They will recognize in the proposal we have put forward a scheme that does not involve any further taxation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is a scheme, all right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This will be paid for by those who will benefit by the proposal. As the Canadian people study and consider this proposal they will recognize that at long last there has been put forward a proposal for a responsible plan of retirement that is in keeping both with the need and the capacity to meet the need.


An hon. Member:: At long last.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know that hon. gentlemen opposite do not like to be told that we regard this proposed increase as inadequate. I know they do not like being anticipated, as they were by the Leader of the Opposition before Christmas, after studying a report which the government caused to come into existence.


Mr. Drysdale:: Why did you not bring in an adequate increase when you had the chance?


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


Murdo William Martin: I have only half an hour, but if the minister will recognize that limitation I shall accept the question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My question is brief. Was the $6 increase from $40 to $46 per month which was introduced by the hon. member's party early in 1957, adequate?


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, of course it was not adequate. No pension-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Murdo William Martin: No pension put forward in the way that was put forward and in the way this increase is being put forward would be regarded as adequate by any responsible, social minded person, compared with the need that faces so many Canadian people.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the hon. member realize he is indicting himself?


Murdo William Martin: That is why I say the increase recommended in this resolution is not adequate to meet the needs of the great majority of the people of Canada who come within the retirement age group.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member has really put his foot in it now.


Murdo William Martin: Hon. gentlemen opposite make much of what they have done. I think it is well for us to consider what the balance sheet in this regard really indicates.

Old Age Security Act
When the legislation arising out of this resolution has been approved the Conservative government that has emulated the Liberal government in introducing amendments to Liberal legislation will have increased old age pensions by $19 a month from the amount in 1957 to the proposed amount of $65, so this government's share of the pension will therefore be 30 per cent. But, Mr. Chairman, that is not the whole story, and no one knows this better than the Minister of Finance. In 1959, the Conservatives increased the tax formula used to finance these pensions from 2-2-2 to 3-3-3. Their share of the tax is therefore 33 per cent. They are therefore giving to the people of Canada less than this government received from the Canadian taxpayers for the purpose of financing the old age security scheme. Whatever increases have been provided by this government-and that situation will apply right up to the passage of this legislation-it will be seen that what this government has given with one hand to the old people of our country, it has taken by the other from them in the form of additional taxes which these older people, like other Canadian citizens, must pay.


Mr. Pugh:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -as a result of the improvident way in which this government has handled public affairs.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the hon. member not know that most Canadians pay lower rates of taxes than when he was in office.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of National Health and Welfare rather surprised me by giving so much attention to the plan which was announced by the Leader of the Opposition early in January, long before this house was assembled and long before this house was provided, through the speech from the throne, with knowledge of the government's intention. Since the Minister of National Health and Welfare has given some attention to this proposal, I think it is well that we in turn should emphasize, for the benefit of the minister and for the enlightenment of the Canadian people, further aspects of this proposed scheme of ours which will provide a national minimum not of $65 but of $75 on a basis that is responsible in every way. It is responsible in the way in which it was conceived, and is responsible in the way in which it is to be financed. More than any other scheme this one will have the effect of discouraging what I complained about last Tuesday, namely the obvious interest of certain political parties in competing with one another in this field, and particularly the temptation for this particular government to

display its great interest in the social welfare of our people on the eve of a general election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know it hurts hon. gentlemen to hear this, but this is part of the case that hon. gentlemen must listen to. Hon. gentlemen forget that the present universal scheme was brought into being in 1950, when no election was in prospect and therefore it could not be argued that we were thinking in terms of an election.


An hon. Member:: What about March of 1957?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In spite of the suggestion which came from the Leader of the Opposition and from the Clark report since 1957, the government has delayed up until the very eve of the dissolution of this house for the purpose of trying to put before the Canadian people a diversion, in order to encourage them to think well of the government, because it extended a particular social program, and in the expectation of causing the Canadian people to forget its ineptness, incapacity and incompetence in providing good government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Canadian people are not going to be fooled by this particular device.


Mr. Graffiey:: What about March 1957?


Murdo William Martin: Let the government of the country face the social needs that exist. Let them address themselves to this need on the basis of merit rather than indulge in what is so obviously a political trick unworthy of any government in Canada.


Mr. Fullon:: Is the hon. member going to support a political trick?


Murdo William Martin: This proposal to which the Minister of National Health and Welfare referred is the product of considerable study. First of all, it was resolved at the national Liberal convention of 1958 that we should support a plan based on the contributory principle following the pattern now in vogue in the United States, for almost 18 years and practiced in the United Kingdom, Switzerland and certain of the Scandinavian countries.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Was that convention not before the last election?


Murdo William Martin: The plan involves a proposal for a contributory pension, one worthy of the Liberal party, the author of every single act of social welfare on federal account that has been enacted in this House

of Commons. There are four essentials in our plan. First, we believe that for the first time it will assure Canadians that they need no longer be concerned about security in their years of retirement. Under this plan everyone will have the opportunity-and much of it was given by way of encouragement in the Clark report-of getting a pension equal to a good proportion of the income that he has been earning. It will be established immediately, once the necessary legislation has been brought in, as it will be brought in during the course of the next 14 months by a Liberal government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This Liberal plan -and I repeat this-I hope will eliminate the competition in which some political forces in this country have been engaged. This system is based entirely on the principle of contribution, where the pension is commensurate with the means taken by each individual Canadian citizen to meet the need, and it will serve as a standard for whatever improvements are to be made from time to time in the plan itself. The pension will be available at the age when most people retire, namely at the age of 65. I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare will observe that particularly because of what he said in this regard a few moments ago.
This contributory pension proposal of the Liberal party will approximate one third of the earnings that a man has been making during the years when his wages were at their maximum. I want to give again an example I gave the other day when speaking outside of this house and when I mentioned the case of the average wage earner in Canada at the present time. Under the statistics given to us by the government the average wage earner in Canada makes about $78 a week at present. Provided that he is now under 60 years of age, he can rely on getting in ten years' time a pension of $243 a month; that is assuming that he is married so that both he and his wife are drawing a flat rate of pension of $65 a month. The Liberal plan will provide on top of that an additional pension of $113 a month. The total of the two $65's and the contributory pension will make $243. This plan will apply only on earnings up to $500 a month. This is a plan intended to assist not those who do not need this kind of assistance but rather the vast majority of the Canadian people whose earnings are under $500 a month or those in that category.
I have talked about the benefits of this scheme at age 65. I have talked about them by implication in terms of the age of 70. But under our plan no one will have to wait until
Old Age Security Act
that age. In formulating our plan we took account of the fact that many of the existing pension schemes provide for retirement at the age of 65. If a man prefers, he will be able to start his pension under the new plan at the age of 65. Of course in that case, because the scheme will be actuarially sound as well as financially sound, it will be a smaller amount but always above the minimum of $75.
And there are other features that the minister neglected to mention when he talked about this plan. It will be completely portable, and I recognize at once that with regard to this aspect of the proposal a constitutional amendment is essential. But to rely upon the constitution as a device for not proceeding with other features of this plan is simply the government's way of saying that they do not propose to embark upon such a plan, at this time at any rate; or perhaps it might be better put that the government is saying that the Liberals surprised them because they came forward with a plan before the government did, notwithstanding the fact that they had the Clark report before we did.
Under our plan a man will not lose his pension rights if he suffers unemployment. His contributions will stop while he is out of work but that will not count against him when the time comes to draw his pension. All wage and salary earners will participate in this plan. Self-employed people, of course, face a different situation, but the Liberal plan will be open to the self-employed to join if they wish, and it will be in their interests to join it just as it has been in the interests of Canadians all over this country to join the hospital insurance plan notwithstanding that many classes of our citizens did not find it necessary under the legislation to participate in this scheme.


James Ross Fulton: It took you 38 years and you could not even get it going.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of National Health and Welfare rather amazed me today when is discussing this plan he let the cat out of the bag as to why the government did not proceed with a plan in which the Prime Minister had said many months ago was one in which he was going to see that Canadians were given an opportunity to participate. I think it is well to try to analyse why the government is now coming forward with only this inadequate increase, confronted as it is with a national minimum of $75 a month proposed by the Liberal party. Why is the government not proceeding as we propose with a scheme based upon the studies made by Professor Clark in the winter of 1958?

Old Age Security Act
I ask hon. members to recall some words that were uttered in the house by the Prime Minister on January 13, 1958, in this connection. This was after the Liberal convention. It was immediately prior to the dissolution of parliament, a time when the Prime Minister obviously was looking for all the ammunition that he could muster to assist him in encouraging the Canadian electors to make the mistake they did in selecting him as prime minister of this country. Here is what the Prime Minister said, as found on page 3233 of Hansard:
Speaking in this house on November 19 last, as recorded at page 1298 of Hansard of that date, I said:
"-we in this government and party intend at the earliest possible date, in addition to the present pension systems, to give full consideration to investigating the insurance system in the United States to the end that we will bring about in Canada a rounded and effective contributory social security system over and above that which already exists."
That statement, Mr. Chairman, was not made during the course of this parliament. That was in 1958, just before the general election. The Prime Minister went on to say:
My reason for referring to the United States insurance system at that time was simply that of all the systems of government old age security in effect in the world today-
Listen to these words, Mr. Chairman.
-I know of none which equals the widespread benefits provided under the United States contributory system. I also referred to that matter when I spoke in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, on April 30, 1957.
If that was the view of the Prime Minister on January 13, 1958, one is prompted at once to ask why he has waited until the eve of an election in 1962 to attempt a part of something which he clearly implied to the Canadian people he was going to do within a few months in 1958.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He is not doing it now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And, of course, he is not doing it now. He simply puts forward the hope that in some long distant future "if we can get a constitutional amendment, if we can get agreement with the provinces, if they are elected" they might give consideration then to doing something which, without any qualification, he said in 1958 he was going to do almost forthwith. In that regard he used these words to be found in the second column on the same page:
With these facts before us we have decided that further detailed investigation and inquiry should be made as quickly as possible to produce the information which will enable us to determine whether a similar system or some modification of it would be fitted or adapted to our Canadian

requirements, in addition, of course-and I should like to emphasize this point-to our present system-
In that connection, there has been no complete Canadian study undertaken since the parliamentary committee reported in 1950. In the light of the intervening years a further investigation is needed in order to ascertain on the basis of experience what if any changes should be made in the recommendations made by that committee.
On November 19, 1957 the Prime Minister, in the course of a speech on another matter, referred to his belief in the United States social security system which in principle we in the Liberal party have put forward today. He was in favour of it then, and he was in favour of it certainly by implication on January 13, 1958. Yet all we have from this government today, in spite of the speeches made by the Prime Minister from one end of Canada to the other about the desirability of adopting the United States social security system, is an inadequate increase based upon an act introduced by a Liberal government in 1950.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question at this point? Would he enlighten the house as to what he meant on May 8, 1956, as reported on that date, when he advised the city council of Toronto that the federal government could not afford to raise the old age pension to $50 from $40 a month? When did he finally conclude that the time had come for an increase to over $50?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is just a diversion of the hon. member's speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister has not asked a question for enlightenment. He has asked the question obviously for the purpose of carrying on, as he usually does, his diversionary tactics. I would simply say to the Prime Minister-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Now we are going to witness Paul's diversionary tactics.


Paul Joseph James Martin: that that reply in its context, and having in mind that we were then seeking to work out arrangements for hospital insurance, constituted a responsible attitude to take.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Thirty eight years and you could not even get hospital insurance going.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are now
putting it forward, and that is what the Prime Minister does not like. We in the Liberal party are now putting it forward based on the Clark report, my hon. friend's own book, created out of his own mind by his own child, his own forebear. We are putting forward a proposal that will give not $50 a month, not $65 a month, but a minimum pension of $75 a month.


Michael Starr: You have no intention of doing that at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are putting forward a plan that is responsible and involves no further taxes but will be paid out of the contributions of individuals, just as my hon. friend said could be done when he spoke in Antigonish and made one more of his many unfulfilled promises which are mainly responsible for the right hon. gentleman sitting where he is today but where he will not be for very long.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Talk about diversionary tactics.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On January 24, 1958 the Prime Minister announced a matter of importance, as recorded at page 3729 of Hansard. He said that in view of the fact that Professor Huson had been unable to discharge his responsibilities as a royal commissioner to investigate the desirability of adopting the United States social security system, Professor Clark of the University of British Columbia had been appointed to carry out the assignment which Professor Huson said he could not carry out. It is important to know why Professor Huson resigned from the royal commission. The Prime Minister said in this house that there was to be a study of the United States social security system and that the study was to be completed within four months. Professor Huson said he could not finish it in four months and, being a responsible man, he resigned from the assignment.
Then the Prime Minister was able to get Professor Clark to make the study. There was then no suggestion as to how long Professor Clark would take, although everyone expected that since the Prime Minister had laid down four months as the period in which the study must be made, that was going to be done. Curiously enough, this coincided almost to the day with the time when the election was held. We did not get the report of Professor Clark when we reconvened shortly after the election of 1958. It was a long time before we received an assurance from the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the report was finally in his possession but we were informed he had not completed his study of the report. No one ever will forget how day after day, session after session, after Professor Clark had made his report, the Minister of National Health and Welfare would say that he was studying the report and just as soon as the report had been studied the house would be advised of the government's position in connection therewith.
Old Age Security Act
It was only last July that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the most studious man in the house, obviously the greatest scholar in the house, finally told us that he had read the report and that we might expect some announcement with regard to government policy based on the Clark report. Then it will be remembered that last fall at the University of Western Ontario when the minister refused to debate with me, he assured me that my curiosity would shortly be satisfied because the government was going to announce its policy. The presumption was that this announcement would be made in the speech from the throne. The country as a whole took from those observations of the minister that at long last, after four years of study, the government was going to bring forward its policy based upon the Clark report and set up in Canada a system based upon the social security system in the United States.


The Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member at this time, but his time has expired.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman was interrupted, and I suggest that we could listen to him for five minutes more.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Has the hon. gentleman leave?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will wait and hear the Prime Minister so that I can follow him.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, we have just been given a fair example of why old age pensioners find themselves in the plight in which they are in this country at the present time. When I heard the hon. member for Essex East say that the Liberal share of the old age pension was $46 and the Tory share was $19, I just wondered when consideration was going to be given to when the old age pensioner was going to get his share. If half the thought, time and energy were being directed toward the share belonging to the elder citizens of this country, I think conditions would improve very quickly.
Before I go any farther I should like to welcome this measure. This $10 per month increase is very welcome to the old age pensioner, and is something that has been long overdue. We only have to go back to the session of 1957-58 when the last $9 increase was granted. Most of us who were here at that time clearly recall the words of the Prime Minister that this was only a temporary measure and there was going to be a better adjustment when we had time to look things over. Of course no mention was made of when this was going to be done. They did not

Old Age Security Act
say the old age pensioners would have to wait until another election before the adjustment would be made.
You know, Mr. Chairman, the present government is threatening to steal completely the social security rut that was carved so deeply by the former Liberal government. Let us make a brief resume of the history of this rut. If we go back we find that the old age pension was originally inaugurated to coincide with the federal election of 1926, when the pension was set at $20. Then in conjunction with the general election of 1940 we had the introduction of the Unemployment Insurance Act. There was a $5 increase in the old age pension in 1943, right after the Liberals lost the Ontario election and the government was formed with 38 Conservative members and 34 C.C.F. members in opposition. The Liberals were practically wiped out, so we got an increase in the old age pension.
Then family allowances were introduced to coincide with the general election of 1945. In 1949 another general election year, there was an increase of $10 in the old age pension. We had another $6 increase to coincide with the 1957 election, at which we also got a hospital insurance program, tightly tied with strings. I have not made a minute study, but as the result of a brief check I find that the only measure that was not introduced to coincide with an election under the Liberal regime was the Old Age Assistance Act, which was passed in 1951. Unfortunately the present government are taking care of this oversight because now they are making that part of the political treadmill.
Today, Mr. Chairman, we had an outline from the hon. member for Essex East of what the Liberals are promising this year. If those of us who are old enough would cast our memories back to 1919-when incidentally I was two years old-they would recollect that was when the Liberals promised health insurance. I do not see any reason why we should take this promise any more seriously than we should have taken that one at that time.
As I said, I regret that the present government seems to have fallen so deeply into this rut. What do we see as a result of their relatively short term in office. We had a $9 increase in old age pensions to coincide with the election of 1958, plus a promise of a raise in the future. Of course the strings were removed from the hospital insurance plan at that time, too. Now we get an increase in the old age pension, again to coincide with the election of 1962. As I said, unfortunately old age assistance, blind pensions, disability pensions, apparently all are to be thrown on to the political treadmill. It seems that the best the elderly people of this country can hope for under either a Liberal or a Conservative 
government is that they will be able to live until another election comes along. In fact, if things carry on as they have in the past I would advise them, instead of going for an increase, to go for having an election every year and then their needs would be looked after.
Having congratulated the government on this measure at this time, I think it also deserves some criticism. I say that because this measure, as with other plans in the past, is not really based on anything at all other than an election gimmick. It bears no relation to the needs of our senior citizens; it bears no relation to their present standard of living; it bears no relation to their present salaries. Therefore I feel that what the minister said about this future contributory pension is correct and it will be a much better solution than any plan we have had in the past with regard to our old age pensioners.
As far as our old age pensioners are concerned, I think first of all a proper basis should be set for our elderly citizens, a proper minimum, and this minimum should have some relation to just what is needed and what is necessary so that our senior citizens can live in some dignity in this country. I think that is one thing that has never been done in the past. In addition to this, I heartily concur with the minister in the idea that some kind of a contributory plan should be made available over and above this basic minimum pension. Of course we have advocated this for many years. It is amazing how rapidly, when election time comes along like this and it becomes time for some action to be taken in the social security field by either of the old parties, they turn to the plans proposed by the former C.C.F. party and the now New Democratic party to get ideas for their plans.
As I listened to the hon. member for Essex East I could not help thinking about this document I have here, which is a draft policy statement written some years ago of the C.C.F. national superannuation plan. It is marked "confidential". I am just wondering whether the hon. member had access to this confidential document, though I think the confidential aspect of this document has long passed. However, it is amazing how the plan unfolded by the hon. member was almost word for word as is contained in this document. What really amazed me was that it was this document, or a very slightly amended document, that the Leader of the Opposition as late as last fall called completely irresponsible. I wonder whether the rapidly approaching election tended to change the value of responsibility as far as the Liberal party is concerned.

I should like to mention briefly a few of the things that we feel should be in this contributory plan. For example, we feel that it should be based on total contribution of 10 per cent of an employee's earnings, made up of 4 per cent by the employee and 4 per cent by the employer. Some may say, why should this be? I think it is generally accepted across the country today that employers have some responsibility toward making provision for the pension or retirement benefits of their employees. In addition to this 8 per cent, 2 per cent should be contributed by the federal government, making a total contribution of 10 per cent.
For self-employed people such as farmers, businessmen, etc., the contribution could be on the basis of 6 per cent by individual and 4 per cent by the federal government. This would result in a nation-wide plan which could be handled out of a nation-wide fund. People not earning enough to pay income tax would not be required to pay premiums. I think in our society today the closest assessment we have of what is needed for a person to live in this country is the income tax deduction. I think income tax deductions are based on the very minimum that is required for people to live at any kind of a decent standard in the country today.
Of course with regard to those people who never earned enough to pay income tax or to make contributions to this pension fund, they would qualify for the flat rate old age pension, which we feel, and have felt for some time, should be this figure that has suddenly come to the Liberals. Five years ago we were advocating that at that time it took $75 a month as a minimum for old age pensioners to try and maintain themselves. I am of the opinion, while we have no figures to back it up, that if a survey were made at the present time we would find that even the figure of $75 has slipped behind today's cost of living and is not in keeping with our present gross national product figure.
The question may arise, what about the present pension plans in this country? Goodness knows there are a myriad of them. There are private insurance plans, industrial plans, even union pension plans among the membership of the unions themselves, the M.P.'s pension plan, government annuities, and so on and so forth. Where would these fit in with a plan such as we envisage? We feel that the workers who are now covered by a pension plan should have the choice of remaining in their present plan or coming into this national pension plan, provided the standards of their present plan meet the standards required by the national plan. If they so desired they could join the national
Old Age Security Act
plan, but they must be assured at all times that their equity can be transferred to this plan. This would result in no loss of equity such as we have seen happen so often in the past and which we see happening on such a widespread scale at the present time. With regard to people who leave their employment for any reason at all, in far too many cases we find they have lost any benefits they may have built up while they participated in a particular plan.
This plan would also provide for complete mobility in our labour force. In many cases today we find people who would like to leave the employment they are in and seek some other employment for which they might be better suited. In so many cases we see what are popularly referred to as square pegs in round holes, or vice versa. In so many cases where there is some kind of a pension plan at the present time, these people are prevented from making a transfer which might be in the best interests of both themselves and the country in which they live. They are prevented from doing this by the pension plans which are now in effect in so many places.
I think that, most important of all, it would alleviate to a great extent the present problem of men over 45. I believe this is one of our greatest problems in connection with men of 40 to 45 years of age. Perhaps their industry has closed down; perhaps they have been forced out of work by automation. There are any number of reasons why men of this age may find themselves out of work. If you talk to any employer he will tell you that in most respects he would prefer to have a man of 45 rather than a man of 20 or 21 years of age because the older man is better trained and is more stable. But unfortunately they cannot do it because either they have a pension plan into which the man who is over 45 years of age would not fit, or they are afraid that within the next year or two they may be forced to enter some kind of pension plan where the contributions for an older employee would be too expensive.
This is one of the major reasons for the difficulties which men over 45 years of age experience today. If this government would take the lead in setting up machinery to provide a nation-wide pension plan under which benefits could be carried from job to job, it would certainly relieve, if not remedy, this particular bottleneck.
There is another important point which should be considered and incorporated in any such plan as is envisaged, namely the question of survival benefits. On the death of a husband, the wife or beneficiary should get the total premium benefits accumulated by

Old Age Security Act
the employee. If the widow should die leaving children under the age of 21, any remaining benefits should accrue to them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear. That is our plan.


Murdo William Martin: That would do away with some of the idiotic clauses we find in some pension plans across this country at the present time. We need go no further than to look at the present pension plan set up for members of this house to find clauses of the kind I have in mind. At the present time when the pensions of hon. members are paid and they are ready for retirement, either voluntarily or by compulsion, if an hon. member should pass away before he drew one pension cheque, his beneficiary would get all the money paid in to the fund by him over the years plus interest. However, should he have drawn one pension cheque his beneficiary would receive nothing. That is one of the anomalies which would be eliminated by the introduction of a sound and equitable pension plan available to all from coast to coast across this country.
There is a further clause which should receive consideration, and that has to do with the death benefit. We propose that this death benefit should be four times the amount of the monthly pension received by the individual up to a maximum of $600. This sum would be for the purpose of defraying any additional costs due to illness or death, and for assisting to pay the funeral costs. This is a matter which is of great importance, and it should receive full consideration before any pension plan is adopted.
There is one other point which we should consider. If we incorporated a plan of the kind now proposed, people paying into the fund across this country would provide the government with tremendous resources for capital development. In this manner the citizens of this country would be benefited in two ways.
Once more I should like to congratulate the government on this move, even though it may be tardy and inadequate. We look forward with great interest to learning the details of the plan which was outlined by the minister with regard to a contributory pension program.


Miss   Aiiken@: This amendment is one of the most welcome measures to come out of the speech from the throne, and I should like to congratulate the government and the Minister of National Health and Welfare on bringing it in.
Many older people live in my riding of York-Humber. One reason for this is that we have a senior citizens' project there called 
Beech Hall apartments, where accommodation is offered at a price which the older people can afford. A project of this kind is, I believe, one of the finest contributions that government can make toward the happiness of our senior citizens. This particular building was made possible by three levels of government, and it was the first such block of apartments to be financed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. There was one man who led the way in the construction of Beech Hall. He was the reeve of York township at that time and today he is the member of parliament for York South, Mr. William Beech. Because of the energy and leadership that he poured into the project, a grateful community called it Beech Hall. Then with the redistribution, because of the way geography goes, Beech Hall ended up in my constituency.
I have a filing cabinet in my House of Commons office filled with letters from the residents of Beech Hall. They are a gallant and uncomplaining lot of people, but most of them have to live on their old age pensions and from time to time I receive pitiful examples of how they must apportion their budgets. That is why I am especially happy that the old age pension is to be raised another $10 to $65 a month.
It is good to hear that this government is to introduce a contributory system so that every Canadian can build up his own pension. The hon. member for Essex East seems to think that he and his Liberal colleagues are the only Canadians who have given thought to this matter of contributory pensions. This is a big, bold step for a country the size of Canada to take. It certainly was too big and too bold for the Liberal government to take until goaded into it by the Conservatives. I have thought a lot about a contributory system of pensions, and I believe one way in which a pension fund could be built up quickly would be for every adult Canadian to contribute. There would also be contributions from management, perhaps from the profits of management, on behalf of every employee and from the unions, through union dues, in respect of every member. Surely it would be much better for a union to build up the security of its members rather than contribute to the insecurity of socialism. With regard to businessmen, farmers and professional men who work for themselves, I think a system of tax concessions could be applied so they might make their own contributions. I believe that under such a scheme we could build up a pension fund which would give Canadians a generous old age pension in addition to the basic government pension. In due course they would

pay their own pensions and this subject would be taken right out of politics.
There are at the present time nearly 900,000 old age pensioners, and if in their productive years in the past they had been able to build up their own pension funds they would not only have adequate pensions now but they would have the opportunity of collecting them at the age of 65, the normal retirement age. I hope that age limit will also be lowered in the not too distant future because many people, and particularly widows, find very difficult the five year period between 65 and 70.
In the meantime, on behalf of the older people in my constituency of York-Humber, I thank the government for this substantial increase from $55 to $65.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, before taking my seat, at the expiration of my time, I had expressed interest in the statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare at the University of Western Ontario in London to the effect that we would shortly learn-it was presumed through the speech from the throne-the government's policy with regard to the study made by Professor Clark. I need only say I was greatly surprised when that speech was produced to find that the minister's indication of things to come proved not to be substantiated.
I have some reason for believing that consideration may have been given to bringing forward, in the vague way the minister did today, the possibility of a plan along the lines of the United States social security system, but that when the Leader of the Opposition announced the Liberal party's plan the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or the Prime Minister, or these two hon. gentlemen jointly, or perhaps the cabinet as a whole, decided for reasons apart altogether from what was desirable to do that some other device had better be found because they had been anticipated in this particular by the Leader of the Opposition.
In any event the committee will recall the debate that took place in this house on March 24, 1961 in which there was an exchange among various members of the ministry, the Leader of the Opposition and myself. I should like to put on record what I said as reported at page 3323, volume 3 of Hansard of March 24, 1961. Among other things I said:
I think that for the Prime Minister and this government to play with the old people of our country in this way indicates the real concern the government has for their plight, particularly when we bear in mind what the Prime Minister said on February 12, 1958. This is what the present Prime Minister said, as reported in the Globe and Mail of February 13, 1958.
Old Age Security Act
Here is the report of the Prime Minister's statement of that date:
-Mr. Diefenbaker took his social security program one significant step further. Until now he has promised only a study of the U.S. social security system.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the hon. gentleman quoting from?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Globe and Mail report of February 13, 1958. This is what the Prime Minister said.


John George Diefenbaker: Where was that statement made?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know where it was made. Does the Prime Minister disbelieve the Globe and Mailt I am sure the hon. gentleman would not question that source. Of course the Prime Minister believes the press is servile. Quite possibly someone else caused them to put this in. However, I am quoting from this excerpt in Hansard:
Tonight, he pledged-
The report does not indicate that the Prime Minister said he would study the question. It refers to the fact that he made this pledge. I continue:
Tonight, he pledged: "We will bring about In Canada a rounded and effective contributory social security plan over and above-and I emphasize this-that which already exists".
Such a plan would provide Canadians with social security payments in addition to the $55 now paid under the old age pension plan.
Referring to the report his government has ordered, he said he had asked that it be made within the next few months so the government would be in a position to have parliament consider the expanded plan.
That speech was made in 1958.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was made in Winnipeg.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate says the speech was made in Winnipeg. I have no doubt Mr. Chairman, nor have you that if the Globe and Mail says that the Prime Minister said such and such, we must accept the Globe and Mail's statement as truly reflecting what the Prime Minister did in fact say. In any event, that is the way I accept the news columns of the Globe and Mail. I do not believe we have a servile press in Canada.
I went on to say:
That was during the course of an election campaign. The Prime Minister led the people of Canada to believe that if they elected this government we would have in this country a system of old age security based upon and similar to the contributory system existing in the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the hon. gentleman now quoting from his own speech?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, quite.

Old Age Security Act


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, well.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have already indicated that. I have found my speeches are often more quotable than those of the Prime Minister. But just so the hon. gentleman will understand the significance of what I did say, I will read it again.
That was during the course of an election campaign. The Prime Minister led the people of Canada to believe that if they elected this government we would have in this country a system of old age security based upon and similar to the contributory system existing in the United States. That is what those words imply.
The Minister of National Revenue further along interjected "nonsense". He was referring to something someone else said, I presume.


John George Diefenbaker: Don't be so modest.


Murdo William Martin: But following that interjection I went on to say:
Where is the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Why is he not here now to tell us exactly the results of the study that has been made with regard to this problem and this program that was projected before the Canadian people in the last federal election campaign?
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate, whose observations are so apt, observed that it was just an election promise.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is exactly what it was, an election promise, now being made for the next election.


Murdo William Martin: Yes, as my hon. friend says, it was an election promise. The Prime Minister told the Canadian people that a study was being made of the United States social security system not merely for the purpose of having a study prepared but for the purpose of implementing a similar program. Four years later, what do we have from the Minister of National Health and Welfare? We have this inadequate increase, supported by all hon. members, and a vague assurance that in the distant future-


John Whitney Pickersgill: After the next election.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -we may expect some progress with regard to a plan that has now been put forward, in its essentials, by the Leader of the Opposition speaking on behalf of the Liberal party.


Michael Starr: The Liberals have no intention of implementing such a program. It is merely an election promise.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hon. gentlemen opposite should not talk about election promises.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the government doing in the statement we have had from the minister today? Four years have elapsed. In July the minister acknowledged
[Mr. Martin (Essex East).)
that the report had been studied. No one can be convinced that my amiable, intelligent and studious friend, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, had not studied that report long before July of this year. Of course it had been studied. The Minister of Finance studied this report, as did the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The study made by the Minister of Finance was made at a time when relations between him and the Prime Minister were such that they could discuss these things. I am sure they both discussed the financial and other implications of this plan long before July but now, for some reason or another, the government is reneging on its promise.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Not at all.


Murdo William Martin: The minister says not at all, but I say that is exactly what he and the government have done. In support of my statement I produce the words of the Prime Minister when he said, "We will introduce such a plan". "All my life," he said in his speeches, "I have been convinced of the desirability of our adopting the United States social security system". That is what he told the Canadian people in Windsor, in Oshawa and elsewhere where such an observation would commend itself to these sections of the Canadian electorate. What do we find now? We find that the government does not have such a plan to place before the Canadian people.
I say the reasons advanced by the minister do not stand up. If it was necessary to get a further admendment to section 94A of the British North America Act, following the amendment of 1951, why has the government waited all this time? The government had this report of Professor Clark a year after January, 1958. The government must be presumed to have studied that report. If it was still of the view that we should have a social security system similar to that of the United States, the government in 1959 should have proposed a constitutional amendment and indicated that it proposed to discuss such an amendment with the provinces. If that had been done we would now have in existence the very scheme which in 1958 the Prime Minister told the Canadian people he was going to see was made available to Canadians.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Promises.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is another promise. Not only is it a promise unfulfilled, but no step has been taken to meet with the provinces. No step has been taken to obtain the necessary constitutional amendment, if such a step is necessary according to the law

officers of the crown. This I believe not to be the case altogether apart from the question of portability.
In our plan we propose not only a direct contributory pension on the basis of a national minimum of $75 to an individual but as well to a survivor and to his dependants. We also provide disability benefits. We also provide for portability of pensions.


Michael Starr: It is only an election promise.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to portability we recognize the fact that there is a constitutional difficulty. However, with regard to the plan as a whole there is no difficulty whatsoever. I propose to deal with that aspect of the problem now.
Today we were denied by the Prime Minister the opportunity of looking at the replies to letters he wrote to the provincial premiers on January 17 last. I do not know how the Prime Minister can justify refusing to table this correspondence when this particular debate is under way, particularly when he has this correspondence and when apparently there is no objection from the provinces to the tabling of these letters. I do not know what excuse he will offer for denying to us in this house, when we are discussing this particular matter, letters that have such a bearing on the suggestion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to the effect that before we could proceed with a plan to provide a simple pension on a contributory basis to individuals, to survivors, to dependants and to those who are disabled, or why we should be denied the opportunity of assessing the government's position with regard to the constitutionality of this matter. I say that the proposal to amend the constitution in order to provide for contributory pensions is an obvious ruse designed to conceal the government's neglect of this vital issue for almost five years. It is obviously a halfhearted attempt to answer the Liberal party's positive program of contributory pensions. By hiding behind the constitutional smokescreen the government will try to conceal its poverty of ideas, its failure to develop a responsible proposal, and to explain its almost five years of inaction.


Mr. Pallell:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If a constitutional amendment is necessary, why the delay in making it? If the government seriously intended to provide for a contributory pension scheme, a constitutional change could easily have been made and the plan put into effect during the last four years. The proposal to amend the constitution now is, I suggest, a mere pre-election gimmick. It is something that the Prime Minister and others will use 26207-1-35$
Old Age Security Act
on the hustings in order to say, "Oh, we want to do this". Of course, he will not say that he promised to do this five years ago. He will say, "We want to do this and we are going to do it but we must respect the constitution. We must respect provincial rights. We must have a conference with the provinces." Of course, if there is any violation of the constitution, or if there is any violation of provincial rights, these must be respected. But what I am saying first of all is that the constitution allows this to be done; and in the second place, if the constitution were otherwise, hon. gentlemen opposite should have acted four years ago and should not have waited until just before the eve of dissolution of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: The people will remember the six buck boys.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister is getting angry. Let me tell the Prime Minister that anger never satisfies in debate. I say to the Prime Minister that when he looks at us, he is looking at a group of men who put on the statute books of this country, to use his own language, the most all-round system of social welfare and we did it not in a cheap political way, as the Prime Minister is doing. We did it on the basis of a responsible approach to this problem.
There can be no valid complaint against legitimate concern by any one not to interfere with the constitutional rights of the provinces. But this suggestion of a constitutional amendment is not made out of regard for the safeguarding of provincial rights. It is made only as a gesture or excuse for the government's inaction. Only because the government has been confronted with an imaginative plan put forward by the Liberal party do we now find the Prime Minister, through the Minister of National Health and Welfare, resorting to the courts or resorting to the constitution as though it were necessary to justify this inaction.


John George Diefenbaker: Who is resorting to the courts?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I believe that the federal parliament at the present time has authority to provide a contributory pension scheme. I also believe that it would have been more in the public interest to start such a scheme immediately, knowing that if certain details at a later stage required joint action, the co-operation of the provinces could have been expected in support of such a widely accepted proposal.


John Cameron Pallett: What is the hon. member reading from?

Old Age Security Act


Paul Joseph James Martin: To my mind the existing amendment 94A which gives to this parliament power to legislate with relation to old age pensions, embraces all the ordinary incidents of such schemes and gives this government now the power at large to proceed, if it will do so. Members of the House of Commons cannot predict how the courts will interpret legislation which is not yet drafted and which, as this government's record indicates, is not likely even to have been thought of. Here is the amendment 94A. I remember it because I had a great deal to do with it. Section 94A reads as follows:
It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions.
I believe that anyone who examines the plan which the Liberal party put forward, and does so in relation to section 94A, will find that it conforms to that amendment. I challenge the government to take any other position. On the basis of the broad language of this amendment there is justification for our opinion that federal legislation could be enacted now. This is also the view of constitutional experts.


John George Diefenbaker: Who are they?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have had an opportunity of consulting them.


John George Diefenbaker: Who are the experts?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Rather than delay action, we feel that an immediate effort to use the powers of section 94A to the fullest possible extent should be made and we are confident that if supplementary co-operative action from the provinces may be later required, such co-operation will be forthcoming in the best traditions of the Canadian confederation.
The minister spoke of old age assistance. He spoke of blindness allowances. Of course, with regard to those programs in which the provinces share financially, we are not concerned in so far as the constitutional aspect is concerned. Those are programs that stand on their own feet. We are talking about the proposal to provide for a contributory old age pension scheme, based upon the pattern in the United States, which will provide a minimum national pension of $75 and which during the period of the building of the fund, or during the period of maturity, will provide for larger benefits along the lines of those received in the United States and in some other countries.
With regard to the argument adduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare
that there is a constitutional impediment to that scheme, I say to the minister that his argument is an affront to the Canadian people when a government, after four years of talk and delay, now attempts to avoid responsibility for implementing a contributory pension scheme by the raising of constitutional issues. If these issues exist, they should have been considered and disposed of a long time ago. To raise them now is an obvious indication of a lack of purpose on the part of this government. Four years have been wasted and as long as the present government remains in office it is clear that many more years will pass before any more effective action is taken to create a national contributory scheme.


Norman Platt Lambert: What radio address is that from?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a carefully considered legal opinion which I suspect my hon. friend from Edmonton West may find it difficult to comprehend. I ask the Prime Minister right now: Does he take the position that the plan which has been put forward in this suggestive way by the Minister of National Health and Welfare with regard to what might be done in the long future regarding survivors' pensions, with regard to pensions to individuals through a contributory plan, providing as well for dependants and for qualification on disability, cannot be put into effect now? Does the Prime Minister say these things cannot be done now under section 94A?


John George Diefenbaker: I do, and that is the legal opinion.


Murdo William Martin: All right. The Prime Minister says that is the legal opinion. Why did he not get that opinion in 1958? Why did he not get it in 1959 so that he would not be coming into this house today and offering that as an excuse for not proceeding with something which he told the people of Canada in 1958 he was going to do? That is my answer to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister makes this promise and tells the Canadian people, "We are going to bring in an old age security system based on that of the United States. Make no mistake about it. I am having a study made." That was during the election of 1958. Yet, four years later, the Prime Minister of this country tells one hon. member that we cannot proceed with the proposed contributory plan because it is against the constitution, when he had four years to call the provinces together, four years to work out an amendment which the law officers in their judgment would regard as satisfactory and which would provide for

the implementation in law of the kind of plan the leader of the Liberal party has put forward at this time.
No defence by the Prime Minister in this regard, in the light of the answer he has just given, will satisfy or convince the Canadian people that he was engaging in anything other than political tactics and political promises, with no intention of implementing them, when he said in Winnipeg, "Not only am I studying it but I am going to see to it that we have a social security system in this country based upon the United States system." The Prime Minister stands condemned by his own admission when he says now that this cannot be done under section 94A and that he has just learned this now. I say to the Prime Minister again, do you think you are going to satisfy the industrial workers of this country? Do you think you are going to satisfy the many thousands of individuals in this country who are wondering about a means to provide for their security during periods of retirement simply by saying that after four years you have suddenly learned that this parliament does not have the constitutional competence to enact a measure that will not violate the Canadian constitution?
What did we do in 1950 when we brought in the universal pension scheme, a scheme that was supported by the Minister of Finance and by the leader of the socialist party at that time? What did we do? We called the provinces together. We told them the kind of bill we were going to bring forward. There were no vague studies such as the Prime Minister has put before the provinces. We said, "We want to do this and we believe that this kind of amendment is necessary". We got the co-operation of all the provinces. We did not wait until the eve of an election. We came into the house with our measure in the fall of 1950, a few months after the all-party committee had decided upon the course which the government of the day adopted in the establishment of a universal old age security system. I suggest that the reason why the government has not gone ahead with this measure and is not taking steps to have the constitution amended in consultation with the provinces is that the Minister of Finance does not agree with a contributory scheme.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The uncrowned king.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hold in my hands proof of the position that he takes in this regard. In 1950 we had an all-party committee which carefully examined the whole question of old age security in Canada, a committee which recommended the elimination of the means test, which agreed on the basic amount of old age pension, one that
Old Age Security Act
would be paid to everyone in Canada at age 70. The committee considered a number of alternatives to the present universal system.
I have here the report of that committee and in paragraph 43 on page 107 it is indicated that the committee was against the adoption in Canada of a system similar to the old age security system of the United States. That was the view of the all-party committee, the view of the Minister of Finance, the view of the then member for Winnipeg North Centre, and a view which was respected by the government of that time in the legislation it brought forward.
On October 25, 1951, the Minister of Finance spoke about this business of contribution, and all the way through his speech he expressed the view, and I am sure he was sincere, that he for one did not believe that it was desirable to embark upon a system such as that of the United States. Has the Minister of Finance changed in that regard?


An hon. Member:: What is the reference?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Page 392 and following of Hansard, volume 1, session of 1951. Has the Minister of Finance changed? Is he the reason why the government, after it received the Clark report, did not come forward with a program and policy based on that report consistent with the assurances and promises given by the Prime Minister? Is that the reason? If that is the reason, it is a reason that one would accept. But surely the Minister of National Health and Welfare should give the house some reason other than the tame one that the constitution stands in the way and in consequence we have got to consult the provinces. Of course in any matter concerning the provinces we should consult them. That is clear. But the provinces did give us an amendment in section 94A and that amendment, in the opinion of responsible legal personalities-


Mr. Walker:: Who are they?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -is one that suggests that that section clearly lends itself to the interpretation I have made. There may be a contra argument. If the law officers take another position, that is understandable. One would want to know all the circumstances under which that opinion was given. I would want to know if that was the opinion of the law officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I should like to know that distinction has been made between the opinion by the law officers of the crown now and the opinion given with regard to this matter when the whole question was before a parliamentary committee in 1950. It is easy to stand behind an opinion given by the law officers of the crown, an opinion that is not

Old Age Security Act
exposed to this house. It is easy in the dying days of a session to say that there is no time. It is easy to say that we must consult the provinces. It is easy to produce a red herring and say that these are steps which must be undertaken before we can do something that we promised in 1958, and in connection with which we had the opportunity of doing something three years ago.
The scheme we have put forward, Mr. Chairman, is a responsible one. It is one that takes into account the needs of the Canadian people. We cannot go on forever, political party after political party trying to outdo the other in what we can offer the older people of our country. It is not a dignified proceeding and it is one of which the Canadian people are growing tired. This scheme of ours will resolve that problem. As the hon. member for York-Humber has just indicated, this proposal of a contributory scheme will, more than any other means, be the way in which to discourage this needless and undignified auctioneering which has attended certain political parties in this country after the present Liberal party had established the basic character of our social welfare legislation.


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Broome:: Would the hon. member
permit a question? Would he give the correct definition of the word "scheme"?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the hon. member has in mind what I think he has, I suggest he should talk to the Prime Minister.
(Translation):


Mr. Bissonnelte:: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasant duty for me to transmit to the government and to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) the message of thanks and congratulations entrusted to me by the old people I visited during the week end.
Since the speech from the throne, these old people are fully satisfied. They would be very sad to hear today the speech that has just been delivered by a great politician, a clever politician-


Mr. Pigeon:: A showman.


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: They would be justified, of course, in reminding him of certain things that they recalled for me.
I have always been interested in old people. I have always taken special care to treat them well, and I can assure you that it was difficult at times to look after them, with no means at our disposal to relieve them. That

was in the dark days when we were at the mercy of the government, of the party which has just recently turned socialist.
The speech from the throne was hardly over than our opponents became panicky and convened at the Chateau Laurier, I am told, to examine the conclusions drawn at their last convention which was held last year. Their purpose was to prepare a new election platform because they felt that an election was forthcoming. They know nothing about it but they expect they will have to face an election, and they must overbid the other parties to be prepared for such an event.
That is why the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) offered us two flags, one for Sundays and one for weekdays, one for French Canadians and one for English speaking Canadians. I even heard that he had a third one to offer, the socialist red flag of the Liberal party.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, that is true.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: To my mind, even the two suggested by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate are too much.


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: You will remember what my hon. friend from Essex East (Mr. Martin) whom I hold in great esteem and who honoured me with his confidence, said a few a moments ago. I shall remind him once more that he is a great artist, a very good comedian. If he had missed the chance of using his talent in politics, he certainly would have found other marvellous opportunities of shining on the rostrum and on the stage.
Social legislation was introduced under a Liberal government, 25 or 30 years ago, that is true. It is also true that the Liberal party presented our older citizens, those who suffer, those who are unemployed, with what in literature is called the torment of Tantalus.
As anyone who recalls that story will know, those meant to suffer had some drops of water coming just up to their lips without ever being able to moisten their mouths nor their tongues. That is what our older citizens had to suffer for many years. During the 22 years of their rule and administration, the Liberals doled out social welfare in driblets as in the case of Tantalus, so much so that when we came into power we had to set things in order.
The old age pension, since we are dealing with the old age security act, was immediately brought up to $55 a month. This was

already quite an improvement over the generosity of our hon. friends opposite.
Today, a bill is being submitted to give $10 more per month to our senior citizens, and this is found inadequate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: You want them to have $75 per month. Suddenly, you are inclined to be generous. But the people will not fall for such lavishness, because they know it is not sincere.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just give us a chance.


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: The people will not accept it because they were the victims of your kind of economy for 22 years.
For 22 years, representations were made to you to ask you to help the aged and the unemployed, but you paid no attention. And now, because the party in power directs its attention toward human plight just as we, doctors, do, you stand and object in this parliament. You stand and object before the whole people of Canada who will keep your attitude in mind, make no mistake about that. I am telling you-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Another 25 years in opposition.


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: Yes, because the hon. members of the official opposition will not accept the verdict of the people against them. I would say that a punishment for a period of four years is not sufficient for hon. members seriously to reflect on their past conduct.
The objectives of this measure augur well for the future of this country.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister of National Health and Welfare for introducing this measure which I am glad to support.
(Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order; it being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
Progress reported.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard) moved:: That in the opinion of this house the government should consider the advisability of a matching centennial grant of a sufficient amount for the construction of a coliseum with at least 14,000
Request Grant for Vancouver Coliseum
seats in Vancouver to better serve British Columbia as an international trade, convention, tourist and business centre.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of addressing the house on this resolution, which undoubtedly will be of substantial interest in Vancouver and in my home province of British Columbia. My own thoughts in connection with a proposed coliseum building are contained in two editorials which appeared in the Ottawa newspapers, one in the Journal and the other in the Citizen, about a year ago. One editorial said this:
The purpose of special buildings for the centenary is to leave behind a heritage for future generations that the community might not otherwise have. An auditorium and concert hall should be built in Ottawa, so that centenary observances could be held in adequate quarters. Other cities could also use such facilities.
The other editorial said Canada should:
-"plan ahead to get internationally important conventions and meetings held in Canada in 1967.
For an event of such magnitude, farsighted, vigorous planning is essential. Government, business, cultural organizations-all must work in close co-operation and harmony. Canada should bring the world to her door in 1967. We must start to plan NOW."
In that regard I feel that the citizens of Vancouver are anxious to plan now in order to properly celebrate the centennial in 1967. The type of building that I have in mind in part is somewhat like Maple Leaf gardens. Whenever I am in Toronto on Saturday night it is a pleasure to witness the opening ceremonies in that building. It is my hope that some day all young Canadians will have the opportunity of being there during the start of a hockey game, when the house lights are turned down, the military band is there and the flag is flying in the breeze. It is a very emotional sight and I hope that in due course we will have that kind of building in order that we may experience in British Columbia that which a visitor to Toronto can experience.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) will remember that before the arena fire in 1934 we had a coliseum seating some 10,000 persons which served us very well in those early years. Ever since we have been talking about a larger coliseum in which to handle all the national and international events that we plan for our area. No building in western Canada has received so much publicity and so much comment, good, bad or indifferent. No proposed building has given so much cause for despair and so much cause for hope. The building, or lack of it, has been a major civic issue for a generation. It has defeated mayors and elected councils. It has caused a rash of political promises. The building has been an issue at every level of government in British Columbia and most certainly it has attracted the favourable or
548	HOUSE OF
Request Grant for Vancouver Coliseum unfavourable attention of many federal government departments here for over a quarter of a century.
Vancouver, Canada's third largest city, needs a large coliseum. We cannot all agree on its exact size, but we all agree that we at least need something larger than we have at the present time. Everyone concedes the fact that we need a place in which to celebrate. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and other federal cabinet ministers who have been on the west coast and have spoken in the present building know what it is like. It has often been described as a cold and drafty igloo. In saying this I am not criticizing those who at present operate the Vancouver forum. I think all hon. members from British Columbia will agree that the Pacific National exhibition directors have tried hard with the equipment and buildings at their disposal.
Ministers, past or present, who have visited the west coast will know that it is no building in which to host the major events of the day. They will know that the citizens of western Canada will never be inspired by national or international programs in a building of this kind. Last summer we witnessed the Red Army chorus in the Vancouver forum while the citizens sweltered in the heat of the building. Then later on Harry Belafonte and Miriam Makiba entertained us there to capacity crowds under most adverse conditions. Entertainers who visit us there hope we will have a much better building. They know that the citizens of western Canada will never be inspired by that type of building and the present conditions. This spells out the need for action in city, provincial and federal planning. Vancouver is far removed from other large Canadian coliseums, and there is thus an unhealthy concentration of national events in the populated centres of the east.
Empire stadium in Vancouver, I am sure, has done much for Canada and has contributed greatly to national unity. That stadium and the competition for the Grey cup have done more for the morale of the people of this country than any other single event. When the Grey cup game was played in Vancouver it attracted a larger audience of Canadians than any other single event. It is good once in a while for people in the east to look to the west for an event such as this. Possibly all too often we have occasion to look to the east for these major spectacles.
A new coliseum in Vancouver, a matching piece to the Empire stadium, could make an almost equal contribution. You cannot build a nation by staging all the big events in the east, and we all look forward to seeing national events, whether they be figure skating finals, hockey or lacrosse finals, again in the
[Mr. Taylor.l

west. At the present time we have not the facilities for staging such events.
As I have mentioned, we cannot build a nation by staging all the big events in the east. Vancouver can do for Canada what Los Angeles has done for the United States. We need a coliseum in which to trumpet our glories. We in the west want to see, at least once in a while, our national and international sports stars, entertainers and political leaders come into Vancouver and speak or entertain us under favourable, and not unfavourable conditions. We would like to see our champions in action. The feel of the champion as reflected in the citizen pays off nationally as well as individually.
The tourist trade is very important to us in Vancouver and if we are to keep pace with rugged, if not murderous competition from other cities in the western United States we must have a convention type coliseum. Seattle, Washington, with the hosting of a world's fair there, will give us keen competition in that area. San Francisco has adequate convention facilities, as has Los Angeles, and Portland is now becoming a real competitor in our area.
I should like to point out that in Seattle, a city of almost equal size to Vancouver, the United States federal government has appropriated $9 million for the planners of the Seattle world's fair. I should also like to point out that in the Toronto area-this was mentioned in a press report-625 conventions bring $96.5 million in cash into that city. We in our area would like to feel we can do more to attract other conventions, particularly from the Pacific northwest.
With reference to the tourist industry, the following was mentioned in an address by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Dinsdale) when referring to that industry:
Only wheat and newsprint bring in more money from outside Canada than do visitors. Only newsprint brings in more money from the United States than does the visitor industry .. . Tourism means much to Canada, but it could mean a great deal more if the tourist industry were more adequately equipped to meet competition in the international market.
Then another report, the Ingledow report, has this to say:
It is not unreasonable to assume, making allowances for available hotel accommodation, that Vancouver with a new coliseum would attract in the order of 30,000 additional convention delegates annually which would represent over $3,500,000 in increased value to the city.
We must keep pace with present developments or forfeit our tourist dollar. Seattle, Portland, San Francisco and Los Angeles are now equipped with coliseums and there is an urgent need for Vancouver to be assisted

in this respect. Vancouver can no longer be a whistle stop in the travel folder of convention sites.
There is much truth in the verse:
He who whispers down the well About the goods he has to sell,
Will never reap those golden dollars Like he who stands and hollers!
In my opinion, Canada and Vancouver have to stand and holler about the goods they have to sell at this time. There is no question about our need for a coliseum. If we are to reach our manifest destiny, if we are to do the job we should and can do, we need federal help in building our coliseum. Times and events have changed. No longer will just an ordinary arena suffice. If an ordinary arena could serve, then I am sure it could be built by private enterprise. But we need facilities far better than those which private enterprise could now afford. I do not think it would be any longer possible for private enterprise to construct a building such as Maple Leaf gardens in the west today. The tax situation has changed; building costs have gone up and it is now necessary that we call upon the senior levels of government to assist us. The citizens in our area have shown great civic pride but they cannot raise sufficient funds from taxes to build the type of building which is needed. The project will cost some $9 million. The city is prepared to grant the necessary land and amenities to a value of $1.8 million. Should the federal government make a grant-and I suggest it should be $3.5 million-I am confident that local business, insurance companies and private industry, with or without help from the provincial government, could do the rest. In other words, if the senior government would resolve to assist by making a grant of $3.5 million the project could get under way by April, 1963. The project turns on the help that can be given by this house.
Investing federal dollars in a Vancouver coliseum is wise economics. Vancouver is a port city and we could make a good case based on our geographical position as well as on account of our climate and the natural attributes of the city. Vancouver is important as a trading centre and could well claim and support an international Pacific trade fair, which might not be a bad idea when we are considering the centennial celebrations in 1967. From the results of such a trade fair, if we had the necessary coliseum, all Canada would benefit. It was said in a recent address given by the president of the Pacific and Orient Lines:
Vancouver is one of the major gateway ports of North America's west coast. It will serve a major role in this growth of Pacific travel.
549
Request Grant for Vancouver Coliseum
It is a role, moreover, that will bring many benefits, but it also will bring many problems.
Then the speaker referred to the steamship lines and said:
Of the steamship lines, it is interesting to note that Pacific and Orient Lines brought about 10,000 people to Vancouver in 1959, and that some 6,000 people used Vancouver as an embarkation point.
We could use an influx of people as large as this in connection with the type of trade fair to which I have just referred.
In asking for a grant of $3.5 million, citizens of Vancouver are not unmindful of contributions which have been made by the federal government in other parts of the country. I refer, for example, to an article which appeared in the Vancouver Sun dated January 27 in connection with a large building planned for the maritimes. The article says:
Canada's first major monument to the fathers of confederation will be a cluster of classically simple structures with a crystal memorial hall as centrepiece.
Further on it states:
The architects estimate the cost of the building complex as $3.77 million.
Then, as we all know, Ottawa, through the National Capital Commission, is to get a fine new auditorium, and reference is made in a report I have here to the fact that it will be part of a centennial grant. Then, again, I notice a report in a Montreal paper that the expenditure of $17,500,000 has been planned in connection with an office building for Canadian National Railways. Again, in connection with centennial grants, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Dinsdale) said this in an address given at Halifax on October 17, 1961:
Spectacular new developments In our national historic sites and parks are under way. The much improved Halifax Citadel... is still highest on the visit list. In Cape Breton, restoration of Fortress Louisbourg will make this famous site of "battles long ago'' as widely renowned and visited as befits its pivotal position in North American history. Plans are already afoot to animate Louisbourg as a living museum. Think of the appeal this will have to the touring public.
We have not too many sites of that kind in the west. We have not too many battlefields to commemorate. We have been known as a peaceful race, perhaps until recent times, with regard to provincial-federal affairs. We do not criticize the restoration of the sites in the maritimes, or in the east, but we do ask that consideration be given to the construction of a coliseum of the type to which I have referred in order that we may properly celebrate the centenary. May I also point out that if a grant of the kind to which I have referred were made, among its main beneficiaries would be Trans-Canada Air
550	HOUSE OF
Request Grant for Vancouver Coliseum Lines, the C.N.R. and the hotel Vancouver, which is in great need of a convention-type coliseum.
There is one practical suggestion that I wish to make before I resume my seat, and it is one which is receiving attention from a prominent architect in Vancouver. It is that the badly needed C.B.C. offices should be placed on the main floor of the proposed building with the coliseum above and storage space beneath and to the rear of the building, the studios to be built above the convention area. The advantage of this plan would be that the C.B.C. could move into modem studios in an area conducive to its operations and close to the two civic theatres now in the neighbourhood. This plan would also give to the coliseum a good tenant, and the C.B.C. would further benefit by being able to use the convention and parking areas when those facilities were not otherwise occupied. Certainly there would be extensive storage facilities available at the rear of the building and below.
I am sorry that all of us in the west have not agreed as to the size the proposed structure in Vancouver should be. I do not feel it would be wise to build a new arena with a seating capacity of less than 14,000. It is noted that the new coliseum in Seattle is to have a capacity of 16,000, and other coliseums on the coast have a capacity in excess of 14,000. Some myopic authorities have suggested a seating capacity of between 8,000 and 10,000. I believe that would be too small. I do not believe that is the trend followed in the construction of similar new coliseums. I am sure hon. members will realize that it is now almost impossible to get a seat on a Saturday night in the stadia in Toronto or Montreal for any national hockey league game. That situation has obtained for approximately ten years.
I cannot believe that those empire builders of sport Mr. Erwin Swangard or Mr. Eric Whitehead both of Vancouver would advocate or plan a coliseum with a sitting capacity of under 14,000. Those two gentlemen and other sportsminded individuals like them have had occasion to visit the east and have experienced difficulty in obtaining seats at existing stadiums.
I trust that favourable consideration will be given to this resolution in order that Vancouver can reach its manifest destiny.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of saying a few words in support of the resolution before us. This is one occasion when you will find a united front among all hon. members from British Columbia.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And on the coast.
[Mr. Taylor.J


Harold Edward Winch: Yes, I think it is fair to say that the resolution will receive unanimous support from hon. members from the hinterlands as well. The construction of this building is of particular interest to the citizens of the lower mainland and hon. members representing those areas. We hope it will receive support from hon. members irrespective of their origin and will be given favourable consideration by the government.
I agree with the previous speaker that it was only a few years ago that the construction of a stadium, arena or coliseum would have been undertaken by private enterprise but the situation is changed today. Such structures are now looked upon as providing a public service. Their cost is prohibitive to municipal governments and private enterprise and so co-operation and assistance are required among private enterprise and all levels of government.
I do not wish to repeat what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Taylor) but I wish to add to what he said by indicating that I am convinced from my knowledge of the city and its growth that such a structure will prove of benefit not only to local residents but to Canada as a whole. It must be remembered that in addition to being the third largest city in Canada, Vancouver is the population centre of approximately three quarters of a million people. Almost one half of the population of British Columbia resides there. Under the circumstances our request for federal aid in the construction of the building will be understood. We trust it will be regarded as part of the planning for Canada's centennial.
It is well known how much we appreciated the assistance that was forthcoming at the time of the empire games. It is recognized how beneficial the permanent structures have proved to the economy of Vancouver and thus of Canada. Thousands of people from across the land attend games at the empire stadium.
As a result of the construction of this building we will be able to look forward to even greater achievements in Vancouver in the future. In my opinion the project is necessary and worth while. I am pleased that the planning is in the early stages and I trust the required assistance will be forthcoming so that we on the Pacific coast will be able to contribute to the celebration of Canada's birthday. The existence of the coliseum will provide recreation for those visiting Vancouver and will make a contribution to the economy of Canada.
If I were to say more I would be repeating what has already been said. I conclude by saying I hope the government and all

hon. members will give favourable consideration to granting the request contained in the language of the resolution.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, I express agreement with the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) to the effect that when something is for the good of British Columbia you will find all British Columbia members in favour of it. We are as one. This is also true of the proposed downtown coliseum.
We have a happy situation in British Columbia. The city of Vancouver is thought of as belonging to all the people of the province. Vancouver is a source of pride to all British Columbians. I am sure that all British Columbians and all hon. members of this house from that province support this resolution. This situation is different from that obtaining in Ontario, for instance, where one often hears unfriendly references made to Toronto, the leading city.
The private members hour provides an opportunity for hon. members to bring their views before the house. Although this resolution is of particular interest to British Columbia I shall attempt to indicate that the thought behind the resolution has an overall national implication.
I do not intend at this time to discuss the seating capacity or the details of the cost sharing arrangements in relation to the coliseum. What we require to determine is the principle that a project of this nature is something that cannot be undertaken solely by private enterprise or a municipal government. A coliseum represents a public service serving more than the locality involved and the cost is too prohibitive to make it a fair, reasonable or even a possible undertaking for a local government or private enterprise. There must be participation by all levels of government and by private industry as well.
Mayor Alsbury of Vancouver commissioned a leading Vancouver engineering firm to make a comprehensive survey and make recommendations with respect to the construction of a coliseum in downtown Vancouver. A citizens committee was also appointed by the mayor to study means of financing the project. The committee of the Vancouver board of trade set up to study the question last week released a preliminary report on the subject advocating a downtown coliseum with 8,000 permanent seats and provision for up to 4,000 temporary seats. Of course, the size will determine the cost but we are concerned with the principle of sharing of costs.
26207-1-36i
Request Grant for Vancouver Coliseum
Throughout Vancouver there has been widespread interest in and support for a downtown coliseum. This interest has been persistent over a decade. As to the amount suggested, I should like to read from the report of the engineering firm commissioned by the city. They had gone into the matter in detail with regard to the present facilities provided by the city in the form of the Queen Elizabeth theatre. In this complex of buildings there is one room in which 2,800 people can be seated. There is a little theatre adjacent to it and there is a restaurant. As found at page 2 of their report they state as follows:
Needed also is a convention centre. Vancouver lias many attributes of a great convention city. It is scenic, has a pleasant climate and is strategically located with respect to all major transportation systems. Further it is well supplied with good hotel accommodation and restaurant facilities. However, to be successful in attracting conventions in significant numbers the city needs a centre to provide exhibition space, meeting room accommodation and banquet facilities of the type that cannot be provided in individual hotels.
Vancouver has already invested in land and the Queen Elizabeth theatre complex of buildings approximately $8 million. Further land acquisition and replacement of a fire hall will cost the city another $1,200,000. The feasibility report suggests that the remaining costs of building a coliseum should be shared equally between private industry, the province of British Columbia and the federal government. According to this report that would mean that the amount required from the federal government would be approximately $3 million.
The value of such a downtown coliseum to the city of Vanvouver is self-evident. The value of this coliseum to the province is also self-evident. But what of the national aspect? Why should the federal government contribute to a project such as this one? I have already pointed out that such a project is not feasible without federal participation. The motion of the hon. member is keyed into a grant because of our centenary. However, I should like to suggest that this grant would be good business in any year because of the foreign spending in Canada this convention centre will induce and the new business it will create.
Last year we spent $855,000 on the exhibitions branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce and $3| million on the trade commissioner service. These and other expenditures have helped to make 1961 a record trade year providing more jobs than ever before in Canada in supplying the goods for our export trade. We had a trade deficit of $576 million in commodities in 1956.
This year we shall have exported more than we bought and our trade will be at an alltime record level.
552	HOUSE OF
Request Grant for Vancouver Coliseum
But what of our balance of payment? I refer to the payments which we are obliged to make in the form of interest payments, dividend payments and remittances for various purposes to other countries. Not the least of the items in our adverse balance of payment picture is the balance with regard to international travel. This year I believe it is estimated that our over-all imbalance of all such payments will be about $1 billion. According to the travel bureau, with regard to travel expenditures for 1960 our imbalance with the United States was $87 million. In 1959 it was $97 million and in 1958 it was $104 million. Therefore in these three years our deficit with the United States with regard to travel was $288 million. When we consider travel expenditures in connection with all countries in the 12 months ended September 30, 1961, we find that we had an over-all deficit of over $185 million. For the years 1959 and 1960, our over-all deficit was the same, namely $207 million.
Now that we have solved our commodity trade problem I believe we must take steps to solve this equally major problem. We must understand that $5 spent in Canada by a tourist is as beneficial as $5 spent in France for $5 worth of Canadian wheat. That is why this proposal has a national aspect. That is why not only this proposal but other major developments such as the development of Garibaldi, developments in Alberta, developments in the maritimes, developments in northern Ontario-all developments which will bring in tourists not only from the United States but from all over the world-will make good business sense in building up this country and will help correct a situation for which I can see no other way of correction, unless by means of arbitrary government control in the way of remittances abroad. Some day this incubus we have on our back will come back to haunt us when and if the flow of foreign capital which helps us to balance these payments is reduced or dries up almost altogether. I therefore say that this is a good business proposal and that this convention centre, complex of buildings, or whatever you may call it, could well be a very large dollar earner for the dominion of Canada. I say that the revenue the government will get from the influx of visitors and from the increase in business could well be considered to be an adequate dividend on the amount of money they are being asked to put up; and after all, this amount is only one third of the cost.
In closing there is one other point which I should like to stress, namely that the city of Vancouver is the major Canadian city on the Canadian west coast. We face the Orient where our greatest potential increase in trade


lies. Japan is already our third largest customer. We face south to the fastest growing states in the American union. We also face south past those states to Mexico and South America. We are at the crossroads of world wide transportation systems. We are a logical spot in which to place this lure which will make Vancouver a truly great world convention city.


Douglas Jung: have listened, Mr. Speaker, with considerable interest to the remarks of my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Taylor), and I must admit that he has made a strong case for the erection of a coliseum in downtown Vancouver. In rising to speak in support of his proposal I should like to bring to the attention of the house certain other matters which might be of interest.
I agree with the hon. member's laudable objective but I think that the proposal should go further. Bearing in mind the hon. member's background and his great interest in sporting matters, we find that he has, of course, emphasized the need for a coliseum. I should like to approach from a slightly different point of view the aspect of international trade which the hon. member covered somewhat in his remarks. We in Vancouver are very proud of the fact that Vancouver is known as Canada's gateway to the Orient. I think it is very important that Vancouver should have something quite substantial and impressive to bear witness to Canada's growing maturity. I should like to see the suggestion put forward by my colleague expanded so that it would not only include a coliseum but would also provide for offices, shopping centres and facilities for trade exhibitions, all located in one central spot which might be called "International centre".
These are my reasons for making such a proposal. Both the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) have dealt with the need to increase trade. At the same time, more and more countries are sending representatives to Canada. We see more and more consulates being opened in Vancouver. From personal knowledge I know of one trade commissioner from a commonwealth country who spent two and a half months in Vancouver looking for suitable accommodation.
Those of us who have visited New York know how impressive Rockefeller centre is. That particular project not only is a great tourist attraction but also is a very busy and much needed business centre. At the present time Vancouver has some very valuable property situated downtown which is used for no other purpose than a parking lot. I can well

Request Grant for Vancouver Coliseum
foresee that this property could be the location of an international square such as I have suggested and which would include the facilities envisaged by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard.
I think it would be a wonderful thing to have a series of buildings erected on a square with a courtyard in the centre, and I do not think anyone would fail to be moved by the sight of the flags of all the different countries waving. In addition, if we had facilities for exhibitions from these various countries located around the perimeter this would not only be tremendously educational but would in my opinion add to the administrative efficiency of the various consulates. I have spoken to a number of architects in Vancouver about this suggestion and they are quite enthusiastic about the possibilities of such a project.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard brought up the point that he would like to see facilities for the C.B.C. located in this coliseum. The C.B.C. is located in my riding and because at the present time their facilities are somewhat scattered I did some research into the problem. The figures I have are quite interesting. I had intended to speak about this matter on another occasion but since my colleague has brought it up I think this is a good time to bring out these facts.
The C.B.C. has different locations for its television and radio studios. It has purchased property since 1953 and it now owns a property located on Georgia street which is 363 feet wide by 131 feet deep, the price it paid being $515,600. It is now eight years since the first purchase was made and a start has not yet been made on the erection of a suitable building. At the same time the C.B.C. has continued to rent premises and it has paid out in rentals and grants in lieu of taxes during the period April 1, 1953, to March 31, 1961, the sum of $591,028.09, an amount greater than was paid for the purchase of the property on Georgia street. If we add the two amounts together we get the sum of $1,106,628.09 paid out between 1953 and 1961. This is a very healthy amount and I suggest it could have gone a very long way toward a grant for the building of a coliseum or a project such as I have suggested.
I have put forward the idea of a plaza or international centre because we already have a large auditorium in Vancouver known as the Queen Elizabeth theatre. However, it does not fulfil the needs of trade exhibitions and, as I say, we have a property which could be used for the building of an international trade centre. My colleague has put forward a very strong case as to the need for a coliseum and, as I have said, he is interested in sporting activities. We join with him in his interest
but I think that if such a building were to be erected in downtown Vancouver it would detract from the purposes of a centennial project and, with great deference to my colleague, I believe that an international centre would be a lasting landmark and an equally worth-while contribution to Canada's centennial. I hope that other speakers will support this project because I think it is worth while. I will certainly lend my support to the proposals put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I shall be quite brief because I see there is an hon. member from Calgary who wishes to say a few words. I rise to express my support for the principle of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Taylor). I believe that the details as to percentages and so on with respect to centennial grants will have to be left to the future. However, I do wish he had expanded his resolution to include an arts centre located in Trail to serve the Rossland-Trail area because with the coliseum in Vancouver and the building I am suggesting for Trail two large centres of the province would be fairly well served. I might say that Trail has been very fortunate in having almost complete facilities for sports encompassed in the present sports arena.
The Trail and district arts council was formed recently to investigate the possibility of building an arts centre for this area and the council is making a very close study of the situation. I mention this in the hope that I will get some support for this proposal from the sponsors of the resolution now before us.
The purpose in planning an arts centre is to fulfil all the needs of the arts in the Rossland-Trail district and such a centre would serve a population of between 25,000 and 30,000 people. It would provide the necessary facilities to serve the area properly so far as development of the arts and cultural activities is concerned. I should like to mention that the people I represent apparently are not quite so commercially-minded as some of the constituents represented by previous speakers who appear to be looking toward the promotion of trade and other commercial activities as a result of centennial grants. Our people would like the centennial to be celebrated by the promotion of those things that can be best undertaken by public authorities with the assistance of grants from this council, for the promotion of the welfare of the people through the development of cultural activities so that our hundredth anniversary will serve to improve our cultural opportunities.
554	HOUSE OF
Request Grant for Vancouver Coliseum
I am going to take my seat at this time because I wish to leave a few minutes for the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) who, I trust, will support us in our representations to the centennial committee for the building of this arts centre which is so necessary in the district I have the honour to represent.


Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, one might hesitate to enter a debate which would do credit to any board meeting of the Vancouver chamber of commerce. At the outset, sir, I want to congratulate the distinguished member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Taylor) who introduced the resolution. I have one or two reservations concerning the limitations of the resolution but certainly not as to the principle.
In introducing the resolution, the hon. member offered as justification for the expenditure, which I believe he suggested would be some $3 million, the possibility of holding a trade fair. This is an excellent idea. He suggested, also the possibility of hearing Mr. Belafonte. This would be somewhat dependent upon taste, but I suggest there are also advantages to this suggestion. The hon. member indicated also that the construction of this coliseum would permit us to save some money by locating the C.B.C. studios in the building. I have long advocated this suggestion any any means of saving money in the operation of the C.B.C. is commendable.
Nevertheless, I should like to express my reservation. There seems to be some uncertainty or perhaps difference as to the actual purpose of the proposed structure, and in addition, as to what else might be accomplished in the same area with the expenditure of the same funds. As anyone who has ever lived in British Columbia knows, one would hesitate to appose anything which might be proposed to improve this wonderful city. My reservation is, are we tying the hands of the centennial administration in advising them, through a resolution, always keeping in mind that the government must be influenced to some extent by the resolution were it to pass? I suggest that perhaps there is a strong inference this is the case. Nevertheless, the very fact that the resolution has been debated will, I think in all seriousness, be a very useful guide to that committee. A large number of members have expressed their views concerning the suggestion that we should construct a coliseum.
This is not a particularly new idea in so far as the commemoration of a major event is concerned. The province from which I come constructed two auditoria on the occasion of their fiftieth jubilee, one in Edmonton and the other in Calgary. These buildings have served a very useful purpose. The


moneys were derived basically from oil revenues. I can well recall the premier's introductory address to the legislature when he said that in commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the province he wanted to be certain something tangible would be left so that the people could look back upon something more than just memories of bugles and drums, bunting and banners. I suggest that these hon. members from Vancouver have the same objective in mind.
I have here, in support of this argument, some of the introductory remarks made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) in introducing the resolution to form the centennial committee. He made references to the necessity of developing something of lasting value in commemorating the hundredth anniversary of this country. I think, therefore, we can all subscribe to the principle introduced by the hon. member because he, too, wants to see something more than streamers and bunting for the people to look back to in the years ahead.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, my reservation still stands. Are we to ask the centennial committee to make this expenditure in the one area without anything more than a cursory examination to determine whether or not an expenditure of this type is warranted. As I said at the outset, the very fact that the resolution was introduced does indeed serve a very useful purpose. This is a guide to the way in which we hope, and I underline the word "hope", the committee will take up its work in developing a particular plan for Canada's centennial.
Now, sir, modesty will not prevent my mentioning that there are other areas that I hope the centennial committee will recognize. For example, we want to bring to this country an international event of some importance. I am speaking, of course, of the winter Olympic games which will shortly follow our centennial. I mention this just to illustrate the variety of subject material at which this committee must look in order to make a proper assessment of the best manner in which to commemorate this very important event. The winter Olympic games would be the most outstanding sporting attraction this country would ever see and therefore will require a great deal of money in order to put together the necessary facilities to make this magnificent area of the west a two-season operation rather than limited to the very few summer months.
I believe it is now six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. 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 in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Monteith (Perth)-Mr. Martineau in the chair.
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act to increase the amount of monthly pension payable thereunder to $65 per month.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I had not originally thought it would be necessary for me to take any part in the debate on this resolution, until I discovered that the government had decided that the less they said about what they were doing, the better, and that they preferred instead to have a debate on the Liberal plan which was initiated by the former minister of national health and welfare. It is obvious that the Liberal plan for dealing with this old age pension problem is very much more in the minds of the government than their own effort which is before the committee. That does not surprise me at all, sir; they seem to have had an obsession with the Liberal plan ever since it was proposed.
I think there has been a tendency which some of us have observed since 1957, which is a part of this rewriting of the history of Canada that has been going on since then on the other side of the chamber-


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: The hon. gentleman has been doing most of it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is going to do a little bit more of it right now and put a little bit of perspective back into this subj ect.
One would think, to hear the Prime Minister, his ministers and his-I would not like to call them his servile followers because that word is reserved for another place-his supporters talk as though they had initiated the old age pensions and done the only things that had ever been done for the old age pensioners. The one and only thing they ever did, and that was between the two elections, and it was perhaps slightly suspect on that account-


Jay Waldo Monteith: This is the third thing we are going to do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, yes, the hon. gentleman-
Old Age Security Act


Jay Waldo Monteith: The third thing in four years, and you did one in six years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman's party made one small change in the regulation; that is quite true, but that had no general application to the old age pensioners as a whole. The only thing that was done by this government for the old age pensioners as a whole was done between the two elections. They did quite a lot of things between those two elections-


An hon. Member:: And they are still doing them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and the government and the country both came to a complete halt after March 31, 1958.


Some hon. Members:: Oh. oh.


An hon. Member:: You would like to think so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Indeed most people seem to think, although I have some doubts about it, that we are on the eve of another election, and the government is now starting to spread around another lot of promises, another lot of hopes and one or two things to give a little substance or a little appearance of substance to those hopes that they are holding out.
I think we ought to remember what was the real history of the old age pensions. The old age pensions-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is in the past.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, in the past, and
especially the history of the hon. gentleman's friends with respect to old age pensions in the past.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Look at the $10 we are giving now. That is better for the people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No doubt the hon. gentleman, with his birdlike approach to this problem, will have an opportunity to put it forward after I have concluded. Meanwhile I should like to go on with my own argument rather than his. The point I am making is that when the old age pensions were initiated in this country, they were initiated by a Liberal government over the bitter opposition of the Tory party led by Mr. Meighen. So bitter was that opposition that there had to be an election.


Mr. McGee:: How many flags?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know that hon. gentlemen do not like this. There had to be an election. The hon. gentleman wants to know about flags. The hon. member for Quebec West said I wanted a third flag. He said I want the red flag of the Liberal party, and so do the people
55G	HOUSE OF
Old Age Security Act
of this country want the red flag of the Liberal party, as hon. gentlemen are going to find out very shortly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: How many? You have had six flags now.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I think if all hon. members would settle down and listen to the words of the hon. gentleman it would facilitate the debate on this resolution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In 1927, when the old age
pensions were put on the statute books over the violent opposition of the Tory party, that was just at the time the right hon. gentleman who now heads this government was leaving the Liberal party and joining the Tory party. It was almost at exactly the same time that the Tory party was trying to prevent old age pensions.


An hon. Member:: What is your evidence for saying that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have the evidence right here and I will put it on Hansard if the hon. gentleman wants it, although I do not think he will. At any rate, there was a conjuncture of circumstance there that a lot of people have not yet. forgotten.Then at the end of the war-


Frank Charles McGee: Which war?


John Whitney Pickersgill: World war II. At the end
of that war the Liberal government brought in legislation which doubled the amount of the old age pension from $20 to $40. Then in 1951, as the hon. member for Essex East has pointed out, the means test was abolished and a universal old age pension of $40 was established. As the hon. member for Essex East also pointed out, all parties in this house at that time took part in the committee which recommended that legislation and that $40 a month, so that in 1951 it was the unanimous opinion of this house that $40 was, in those circumstances, the appropriate figure for the universal old age pension. The Minister of Finance, speaking for his party, approved it. Mr. Knowles, speaking for his party, approved it also, and that was the figure which was set by parliament at that time. Six years later the cost of living had risen by 15 per cent and at that point a 15 per cent increase was made in this figure. Everybody in the house approved that being done in 1951.


An hon. Member:: Six years and six bucks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, six years and six bucks. Hon. gentlemen opposite said that was not enough and, of course, they were quite right; no figure is enough. We should do for


the old age pensioners everything we can afford to do in this country and no figure will ever satisfy us that we are doing as much as we can if there is more we could do.


An hon. Member:: How big was your surplus?


Paul Raymond Martineau: There seems to be an unusual amount of interruption by hon. members from their seats and I would ask all hon. members to co-operate so that the hon. member who has the floor may be heard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hon. gentlemen oposite brought forward a measure, which was universally approved, to add another $9. In other words, hon. gentlemen opposite felt that in the year 1957 the appropriate increase was $15. Compare that increase in 1957 with the increase they are bringing today, an increase of only $10, and hon. members will see the difference between the two positions.
I thought it worth while to send out and get the cost of living index to see what the situation was, and anyone who takes the trouble to examine the cost of living index will see that the $10 increase now being proposed is, in purchasing power, approximately the same as the $6 increase in 1957.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So, if there is any talk about the six buck boys, the six buck boys are now over there.
The Prime Minister thought it was very clever in 1957 to talk about 20 cents a day. Today he is offering the old age pensioners 30 depreciated cents a day-and those cents are being depreciated as fast as the printing presses can grind out money to cover the government's deficits. That is the situation. From an old age pension at the end of the second world war of $20, with a means test, the Liberals removed the means test and far more than doubled the amount. That is the record, and the increases since then must be compared with that record.


An hon. Member:: I want to get the record straight-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, and I intend to put a little more of the record straight. The Minister of Labour, in an intervention this afternoon, which I thought was very imprudent, described the Liberal plan as an election promise. I just want to remind hon. members, some of the noisier ones-


Michael Starr: I want to say that I added to that-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister can add to
what he said in his own time and not in mine. I appeal to be allowed to speak and not to be interrupted.


Michael Starr: I also said you would not carry it out.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am sure all hon. members realize that there should be no interjections from their seats. If any hon. member has a question to ask he should rise in his place and ask permission to put his question.


Frank Charles McGee: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will answer any questions at the conclusion of my remarks and I should prefer, because of the limit on my time, not to be interrupted. Besides, what I have to say I should like to say consecutively.
I want to tell the Minister of Labour that I have not forgotten what was said by the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent sitting in the seat of leader of the opposition in the parliament before this one when he said that every undertaking given by the Liberal government in its 22 years of office had been carried out; and so will this plan be carried out by a new Liberal government. Our program is always drawn up to be carried out and we make the kind of program that can be carried out. We do not go about making promises which we know perfectly well cannot be acted upon.
My hon. friend from Essex East put on the record one of the Prime Minister's references to social security in the 1958 election. He referred to only one of them but I propose to put on record three or four or more to show that this was not just a slip of the tongue on the part of the Prime Minister but a consistent campaign across this country telling people they were going to get the United States contributory system in a modified form right after the 1958 election. He did not tell them that if they voted in the 1962 or 1963 election they might get it; it was going to be after the 1958 election. I know that hon. members will interrupt me the moment I begin reading the Prime Minister's words, because they hate to hear what he said in 1958.


An hon. Member:: What are you quoting from?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I intend to read a Canadian Press report which appeared in the Montreal Star of February 26, 1958 dealing with a speech-
Old Age Security Act


Richard Albert Bell: Is the hon. gentleman reading from an original document? Perhaps he would identify the document from which he is reading.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am reading a Canadian Press report from the Montreal Star which was typed out from that newspaper. If the hon. gentleman wishes to go and find out whether this is so or not I suggest he would be more profitably occupied than he is in the house now.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: The hon. gentleman is now reading from a secondary document.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I told you, Mr. Chairman, that hon. members would not like to hear what the Prime Minister said. They do not want the public to know what their leader said in 1958. We are not ashamed of what our leaders have said in the past but I do not blame them very much for not wanting to hear about broken promises. However, this is, I hope, a free parliament-


Richard Albert Bell: Will the hon. member answer a simple question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I will not answer a question. I want to go on and make my statement.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Has the hon. member a point of order?


Richard Albert Bell: On a point of order; if the hon. gentleman is reading a document I think he has an obligation to parliament to identify the document from which he is reading. The hon. member seems for some reason or another-some strange reason- to be ashamed to identify that document.


Ernest James Broome: On the point of order, should the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate not table the document he has in his hands now?


Paul Raymond Martineau: 1 believe the hon. member has already identified the document from which he is reading.


An hon. Member:: No, he has not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You see, they do not like to hear the words of their leader. What better evidence of that could there be than the interruptions we have just heard. The report reads:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker... has hinted at speedy action to broaden Canada's social security system.
"I believe it will not be very long before we will be in a position to introduce in the new parliament a contributory social security system", he said here last night.
Four years later -


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about the 38 years for hospital insurance?

Old Age Security Act Mr. Pickersgill: Listen to these words:
Last month he appointed Dr. Robert F. Clark, University of British Columbia economist, to make a study of the United States social security program.
The Prime Minister told his Hull audience of some 850 persons that some features of the American plan would have to be altered before it could be fitted on top of the present Canadian program of $55 monthly pensions paid to all at 70.
He detailed the payments which he said are made under the U.S. plan to those on average incomes: between $88.50 and $98.50 a month for single workers retiring at age 65; $132.80 a month for a husband and wife retiring at age 65; death benefits of $255; disability payments starting at age 50.
He said these payments, made without a means test, are financed wholly by contributions from employers, employees and self-employed. The cost per person was less than the present Canadian plan.
That was in Hull. The Prime Minister also spoke in Edmonton on March 8, 1958, as reported in the Edmonton Journal of March 10:
His party, said Mr. Diefenbaker, "is not satisfied social security legislation in this nation is what it should be".
They were not satisfied in 1958 but they have not done anything about it four years later. They now make the excuse that the constitution stands in their way. I continue: "The Conservatives are studying the American social security scheme," he said, and hope to introduce "an effective and rounded social security plan" which would give Canadians, on retirement at 65, a monthly income about the same as under the U.S. scheme-$88.50 to $98.50 a month.
That was in Edmonton. And then the Prime Minister speaking in Chilliwack on March 11, 1958-


Ernest James Broome: Where is that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Chilliwack, I believe, is in British Columbia. The hon. gentleman would not know that, of course.
The plan we propose-
-said the Prime Minister:
-is over and above the present pension payments. There will be no cuts, "nothing of the kind", he emphasized.
This statement is from a newspaper which the Prime Minister loves, the Winnipeg Free Press of March 12, 1958. The statement was made the day before in Chilliwack. Hon. members will observe that the statement refers to the "plan we propose" not the "plan we are studying".
And then, at Nanaimo, also in British Columbia, I add for the benefit of the hon. member for Vancouver South, the Prime Minister speaking on March 12, and this is from the Toronto daily Star of March 13:
-pledged that in the next parliament-
Note those words "in the next parliament". That is this parliament, not some future parliament.

At Nanaimo he pledged that in the next parliament the Conservatives will introduce-
Not "might" introduce but "will introduce".
-a voluntary contributory old age pension plan over and above the present old age pension plan. It would be, he said, "for everyone in Canada who chooses to belong to it".
The Prime Minister used the words "in this parliament" when speaking in Nanaimo on March 12, 1958.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Are they in quotation
marks?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The following words appear in quotation marks:
-for everyone in Canada who chooses to belong to it.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I regret very much interrupting the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate, yet in a matter of this importance where the hon. member is allegedly depending on primary evidence I think the following question should be raised. The hon. gentleman purports to be quoting from newspaper extracts but it is obvious to all hon. members that he is reading from a book. In order to have compiled a book the statements the hon. member is quoting must have appeared in original form. It is the usual procedure in this committee to take the best primary evidence available which is original newspaper clippings. In the alternative the hon. member should table the document which appears to be a 1958 Liberal production. How do we know that these are authentic statements reflecting what appeared in the press? I think the committee is entitled to have before it the best possible evidence. After all, the hon. member is reading statement after statement.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The hon. member who has the floor has stated that he is reading from a clipping which appeared in a newspaper.


Jay Waldo Monteith: He is not, though.


Paul Raymond Martineau: In any event, an extract. According to the rules of the house an hon. member who makes a statement does so on his own responsibility. The hon. gentleman in citing whatever he is citing is doing so on his own responsibility. I do not feel there is a valid point of order.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I would ask the hon. gentleman to table the document from which he is reading if there is any doubt.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I shall not bother to deal with that interruption.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Just table the document.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, I should be delighted to table the document if the rules of the house allowed it.


Mr. Simpson:: Go ahead.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We know, sir, that under the rules of the house only members of the government are allowed to table documents. If the hon. gentleman would read the rule book he would find that out.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: However, Mr. Chairman, I shall be very glad to send the hon. gentleman a copy of this document so he may have before him what the leader of his party had to say in 1958.
The next statement to which I wish to refer was made in Montreal on March 25, 1958. It begins in the characteristic style that should be only too well known to hon. members opposite. Quoting the Prime Minister, the statement begins, and this appears in quotation marks:
"As long as I am Prime Minister", he said-


Edmund Davie Fulton: That will be a long, long time.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Longer than the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate wishes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -"our system of social security will receive special attention and there will be no reduction in existing measures".
His audience applauded vigorously when the Prime Minister referred to his party's study of the U.S. social security system and the proposal of its adaptation to Canada.
I have placed those few quotations on the record. To satisfy the curiosity of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond I will say they are contained in a compendium made by the Liberal party of the promises of the leader of the Conservative party because we wanted to remember them and we knew that hon. members of the Conservative party wanted to forget them.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Table the document.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have given plenty of evidence to show that a cast iron promise was made by the Prime Minister. It is another of his broken promises. He promised to bring before this parliament contributory pension legislation.
In all these extracts and any others I have been able to find, not one word is said about the constitutional difficulty that hon. gentlemen opposite have now pulled out of a hat since the Liberal plan was proposed early in January.
We know why this excuse was pulled out of a hat. It is perfectly obvious to everyone that hon. members opposite intended to do
Old Age Security Act
absolutely nothing about the Clark report or this plan until the Liberal plan was proposed and then, because they had nothing to propose, they realized they would have to find some excuse for breaking their promises and so they resorted to the constitutional arguments.
Unfortunately for them their bluff was called. Although we are not allowed to see the correspondence in this house one of the provincial premiers had already told them to produce their scheme and then he will consider the question of a constitutional amendment. Of course, they cannot do it because they have no scheme to produce and everyone knows it. This is just another bluff, one of another set of promises for use in the 1962 election. Well, sir, the Liberals will not have to bother publishing the 1962 promises because the Prime Minister will not be in power to do anything about them.


Jay Waldo Monteith: You hope.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish to say a word about the question of a constitutional amendment. I do not wish to gild the lily that has already been exposed to the committee by my hon. friend from Essex East but I think perhaps there is one point he made which needs to be emphasized. It may or may not be that every detail and every aspect of a perfect contributory scheme would be constitutional. It might be that we could not have an absolutely perfect scheme that was contributory.
I am very familiar, as the hon. member for Essex East also is, with the reason why section 94A was put in the constitution. I know why it was done, how it was done, why Mr. Duplessis agreed to it and why the government of Quebec of that day agreed to it. It was precisely for the purpose of bringing in a contributory old age pension scheme. That is why it was done.


Mr. Bigg:: Why did you not do it then?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Someone asks why it was not done. The hon. member for Essex East answered that question this afternoon. It was not done because a parliamentary committee recommended unanimously an old age security scheme without a means test with the support of all hon. members of the house. But that was just one stage. I think the feeling was that we must have a universal basic pension first and a contributory scheme on top of it. That is what the Liberal party is proposing and that is something that could be done now. It could be done in this session of parliament if this government had a scheme and if they had the will to do it. But they have neither. They bring in this inadequate scheme, this 30 cents a day or 30 depreciated cents a day. That is not the way in

Old Age Security Act
which I talk about things like this. I am just imitating the language used by the Prime Minister in 1957. That is the level at which the Prime Minister discussed public affairs in 1957. I am just applying his own high standards of public debate to this matter.
I say that this is an inadequate way in which to deal with this problem. It is not good enough for two reasons. It is not good enough because instead of the fundamental problem being dealt with, the matter is being dealt with on a basis that is going to add considerably to the already monumental budget deficit. It would have been possible, it would have been the honest and straightforward thing to do, and it would have been acting in good faith to bring in the contributory scheme which the Prime Minister promised to bring in in this parliament. That is a promise which has been broken, and it is being broken at the present time under the cheap smokescreen that some aspects of it-and only some of them-could not be covered by the constitution. Let them bring in all that could be covered by the constitution. Then when they have done that, and when we in this parliament have done everything which we have the power to do, let them then go to the provinces and say, "We can make the scheme a little bit better if we do this here or that there". I anticipate that there would not be much difficulty in getting agreement to make it a little bit better in this way and that way. However, the main thing could be done right now under the powers existing under the constitution as it was amended in 1950. I do not know why hon. gentlemen opposite are not doing it except that they have nothing ready. They have no plan. This matter is like everything else. This government has a total incapacity to get business done and it has toward promises an attitude the like of which has never existed previously in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Cameron Pallett: That is quite right. We carry them out.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that his time has expired. I recognize the hon. member for Grey-Bruce.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Perhaps I could ask the hon. member a question.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The hon. member's time has expired. The consent of the committee would be required for him to continue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether the hon. member for St. John's West could not ask his question on his own time. He is entitled to speak in this committee.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I recognize the hon. member for Grey-Bruce.


Mr. Winkler:: Being very much interested in the social welfare legislation this government has presented, Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to enter this debate briefly this evening. I have had a tremendous number of personal experiences in this field in my own constituency and some of the adjacent ones. In the past, when investigating some of these cases, I have found that when people, through circumstances, were forced to go to the municipality for additional assistance owing to the lack of support from friends, family, or other sources, it was generally in the neighborhood of $10 a month that was required. I know this amendment will alleviate that problem. Certainly the government and the ministers are deserving of our praise and commendation for bringing in this measure. It certainly is a necessary one and it will be appreciated, not depreciated, by the recipients of old age security in this country.
I was interested this afternoon in listening to the hon. member for Essex East set forth his program and again tonight in listening to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who spoke in support of it. This certainly brings into focus a very peculiar picture at the present time when we consider what these men advocated such a short time ago. Obviously they were responsible to some degree. I was much interested to hear the hon. member for Essex East suggest that no plan had ever before been presented until such time as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned this one early in January before the opening of the house. For the benefit of hon. members of the committee and of the country in general and particularly for the benefit of the hon. member for Essex East, I would refer him to page 6998 of Hansard of the 1960-61 session, volume 7. In that volume at that page it will be found that I outlined to the government on the estimates of the Minister of National Health and Welfare a very comprehensive plan differing only in specifics from that which the hon. member for Essex East has now proposed. Let it not be said that this is his plan or his party's plan or that it is their idea. As a matter of fact, I consider it to be political plagiarism for him to bring in this plan in this way, supported by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, as I have said. This plan did not originate in my mind or in the mind of any one person. Many of us have given it much thought. It was only after consultation and thorough understanding that I presented this plan in the way in which it is laid down in that volume of Hansard. I know that in

the not too distant future, following this essential measure, and with the amendment of the constitution there will be additional measures that will bring the contributory scheme into play. There is no doubt about this matter. The efforts of this government are sincere on behalf of the people of the country and I know they will receive the support of constituents across this dominion.
As is most usual the master of political deception-I refer to the hon. member for Essex East-calls current legislation a political tricks by the government. He asserts that his plan is the result of study, preparation and all those other things upon which he can elaborate in his eloquent manner. However, to me the burning question is this. Why is there so much change in the statements he makes? Why are changes from statements made by the Leader of the Opposition supported by him and then changed by him? To me this does not sound as though a great deal of thought had gone into the question, but only that obviously there was a further element of deception for the Canadian voters in the coming election. There is no question of that in my mind.
Such a plan as that which he now advocates could and should have been advocated in 1955, with all the surpluses of the Liberal government of that day. Now he has the audacity to tell this government that this is a political trick. Everyone knew at that time-and they have not forgotten-of the surpluses that existed in 1955 and that the measures that were taken by the Liberal government were such as to hide this money, to keep it tucked away. They did not want to spread inflation, or that is what they said. But they also did not want to let the taxpayer have the right to spend his own money. They kept it hidden. This is no trick. This program presented by the government is on a sound basis, on the basis of necessity at the present time and it will be expanded as time goes on with the contributory clauses that will be required to bring it up to a full and rounded program. Furthermore


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend permit me to ask him a question?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask my hon. friend if he can explain why, in the light of the assurances given by the Prime Minister, a contributory scheme was not brought forward immediately after the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his colleagues had studied the Clark report?
Old Age Security Act


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I will be very glad to answer that question. In my opinion, as I said a moment ago, this scheme could have been implemented in 1955. With all the money that was available at that time, that was the right time to institute a contributory plan. The member for Essex East asks me this question. He sat on the treasury benches at that time and he was the man who could and should have instituted it. After 1957 we had to wait to clear up the mess they had made before we could bring in this measure.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Answer my question.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It was only because of the recession in 1957 that we could not bring in a better measure or a contributory scheme, and I am quite sure that otherwise it would have been done by this government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why did you not
do it in 1958.


Eric Alfred Winkler: We are doing it today in my opinion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are not
doing it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I am sure that the hon. member for Essex East as well as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who supports him know that they were responsible for the recession in 1957 just as we and the rest of the people of this country know it. But the hon. member for Essex East says today that $10 is not enough.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: He also says that the promise of $6 by the government of which he was a member in 1957 was not enough. That is a nice statement for him to make now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is an honest statement.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I wonder who he thinks was responsible for that proposal in 1957. Who was minister of national health and welfare in 1957? Maybe he still wants to blame the former minister of finance for that act by that dictatorial government. I don't know.


An hon. Member:: You mean six-buck
Harris.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Maybe he still wants to blame him for that offer which he says today was not enough. He did an excellent job then of transferring to Mr. Harris in 1957 and again in 1958 a responsibility which should have been his. There is no question about that. To gain his own political objectives, particularly in Ontario, during the Liberal

Old Age Security Act
leadership race, it was probably he who originated the well-known saying that was so firmly affixed to that gentleman at that time-"Six-buck Harris rides again".


Paul Joseph James Martin: He is going to take care of you in the next election.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Let there be no doubt where that saying originated. Let there be no doubt who was responsible for it. If I understand the situation today correctly, and after all I may be a little closer to it than the hon. member for Essex East, I understand that the gentleman in question is not too interested in affiliating himself with those hopefuls who are speaking like this. Who can blame him when such titles were attached to him by his colleagues who are waiting in the wings for another call?


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I have mentioned these points because of the way in which the hon. member for Essex East has been speaking in retrospect today about what took place in 1957 and I say that he deceived his country at that time. I believe that he even deceived his colleagues. I do not think there is any question about that because if that had not been the case he would have had more power in the Liberal cabinet prior to 1957. If he did have that power then he is responsible for the $6 proposal. There is no question about that at all.
It is also an amazing thing that the proposal was made at the Liberal convention in the Chateau Laurier hotel recently and that since that time we have not heard any support for it from the Leader of the Opposition. We have not even heard him mention it. I wonder why this is so. Is it that he does not support the change in the plan by the hon. member for Essex East? I don't know.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He announced the plan.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: What about the revision, the Martin plan?


Eric Alfred Winkler: What about the change in thinking?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are a team; we are not a dictatorship.


Eric Alfred Winkler: As this legislation comes forward and is about to be put into effect, opposition is being voiced on the floor of the house by members of the Liberal party. They tell us that a $10 increase in old age security is not sufficient. I hope that they have the courage of their twisted convictions to vote against it. I will be happy to see this change. It will certainly show that the change in

thinking has been as a result of action by our Conservative government which thinks of the senior citizens of this country.
I was also interested to note that in proposing this plan they only mentioned the highest payments, the maxima. Possibly I have not been in the house long enough and do not realize the usefulness of being able to present a plan and only put before the people the gravy in the deal that is being offered to them. The plan I presented to the house in 1961 was a little more comprehensive. I suggested there the highs and lows based on the facts and figures, as hon. members will note if they care to refer to that address.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why did the government not accept it at that time?


Eric Alfred Winkler: The government is accepting it. I said before, Mr. Chairman, and it would appear that I have to reiterate this point, that the logical time to present this plan was in the year 1955. I know that it would have had the support of the whole country and of the members of this party who were in the house at that time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why did they not put it
forward then?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, the people of this country are somewhat disgusted with the Liberal party today, and for very obvious reasons. All of their utterances, all of their comments are destructive. Not one is constructive. If they were constructive they would support the government in this proposal and not make a lot of derogatory remarks about the record in the past. I would not have been prompted to speak tonight if it had not been for the words of the hon. member for Essex East, the deportment of his party in the 1957 campaign and the proposals and promises they made at that time. I only need refer to the Windsor Star to assure the hon. member for Essex East that that newspaper has assured the people of that area that this government has kept its promises. I might also point out that the Globe and Mail had this to say in an editorial on February 1:
Why are the Liberals, who ignored the project in the days of budget surpluses, so eager to adopt it in a time of deficits?
That is precisely what I was saying before. It has taken all the years since 1957 to get over the catastrophe with which we were faced then and to be in a position to present this measure to the country. I can only say that I agree wholeheartedly with what Mr. Arthur Blakely had to say in his column in the Gazette this morning by way of a parody on the Whiffenpoof song. This is a great

description of the Liberal party and the Liberal promises today. I simply quote a few lines:
We're poor little lambs who have lost their way,
We're little black sheep who have gone astray,
We're gentlemen scholars out on a spree,
Doomed from here to eternity.
The last line is entirely correct. 1 have followed the Liberal program very closely.
I listened to reports about their convention last week at the Chateau Laurier. As I was on my way to my office in the parliament buildings one very cold morning last week I stood in front of the station across the street from the Chateau Laurier hotel. This was the day following the announcement of the pension scheme by the hon. member for Essex East. As I looked across at the Chateau Laurier there were three flagstaffs. Below the centre one there was a big round sign with the words, "Canadian national Liberal association convention", or words to that effect. It was in red letters on a big white sign. Above it was a Canadian ensign on the pole. It was a very cold morning and the breeze was blowing strongly from the east.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is blowing tonight too.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It seemed to me that the wind had wrapped the flag around the staff so that the flag appeared to be flying at half staff, and I think for a very good reason. This is precisely the way I think of the proposal of the hon. member for Essex East in respect of that for which he argued and supported in 1957.


Harold Edward Winch: After listening to the majority of the speeches thus far on the resolution which is now before us, I would almost swear we were already on the campaign hustings because that is certainly how the majority of them sounded to me. I feel certain, Mr. Chairman, that most, if not all of us, feel under an obligation to the professor from Bonavista-Twillingate for the history lesson he gave us on the background on the old age pension legislation. I feel certain it was an oversight, but I was a little bit disappointed that he did not complete the history lesson by reminding us of the reason the Liberals introduced old age pensions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Because they were in the 1919 program, that is why.


Harold Edward Winch: I will tell you why. Old age pensions were introduced because there was practically a tie vote between the Conservatives and Liberals in the House of Commons. At that time the Liberals were under Mackenzie King, the Tories under Meighen and the late J. S. Woodsworth was the leader
Old Age Security Act
of the C.C.F. Mr. Woodsworth wrote a note to both of them saying, what are you going to do about old age pensions; will you bring this in if you have our support? They wanted his support. Meighen did not answer the letter but Mackenzie King did and he received the support. This is a matter of record.
I also want to say this, without being facetious. A few months ago the leader of this government said that the issue in the next campaign is going to be private enterprise versus socialism. This session that same government has been making a pretty fair attempt to expand the welfare state in Canada, and we are certainly not complaining about that because the welfare state is the exact position in which we are. It is going to have to grow. It is an inevitable part of the transition to democratic socialism. I do not think many of us in the House of Commons, let alone in the general public, realize the extent to which under this system of so-called private enterprise we are actually in the welfare state. I was most interested, while making a compilation the other day, to note that the Canadian government is now spending over $3 billion a year out of the federal treasury on the welfare state. If you add together all that is required for pensions, for health services, for hospital grants, for educational grants, for subsidizing free enterprise, the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian National, the coal mines and the gold mines, you find that over $3 billion is the cost of the welfare state in Canada at the moment. I feel this is an indication of the need for speedy planning to ensure there is not a hodge-podge of legislation, of grants and of subsidies.
I mention this welfare state because of the resolution which is now before us and the $82 million we have just passed in the form of supplementary estimates. I was intrigued as to whether or not there was a recognition on the part of the Conservatives of the meaning of this welfare state and of the warnings that they have been given by the fanatical private enterprisers who do not think it is right. I was most interested in reading this remarkable publication that we receive every month called The Outlook, which is put out by a chap named Gladstone Murray. He is a responsible enterpriser and it is most interesting to note what he has to say on the front page. It is headed "A Warning Signal", and I can only assume that this is a private enterpriser who is warning the government.
All who are engaged in private enterprise are warned to exercise special vigilance in 1962. This is the year the socialists and their allies propose to take steps to prepare the way to gain control of this country.
I had thought that when the hon. member for Essex East was speaking he had this warning in mind. He might think that these

Old Age Security Act
advances in welfare by the government tied them up with the socialists. It is interesting to note, after this warning on page 1, that we find what the warning is all about on page 3, where we read the following:
Under both the welfare state and communism the responsibility for the welfare, security, and prosperity of the people is presumed to rest with the central government. Coercion is as much the tool of the welfare state as it Is of communism.
I thought you might be interested in that in case you do, as I usually do, that is throw this paper in the waste basket before reading it. However, this is part of the attack by private enterprise and the welfare state and is also aimed at confusing advances and reforms with that dirty word, in many people's minds, communism. I do not take that attitude, and that is why I welcome any advance that is going to improve the welfare and the standards of the citizens of this country. Personally, I am not concerned with who was responsible in the past or who is to be commended or condemned. The past is past. Whether or not this is an election year, the business of government has to continue and adjustments that can be made in the economy in the interests of the people should be made. The decisions should be made on the basis of merit, not of political expediency.
We can do the majority of our battling, when it comes to differences in fundamental principles-there are certainly fundamental differences-on the hustings and away from the floor of this house. I think a good many of us realize that the proposal now before us is not the ultimate. I feel we have to recognize that in this great welfare state the requirements of the senior citizens can only be satisfactorily brought to a conclusion through definite planning to establish a basic minimum of security at decent levels. Then we can provide, as our group has pointed out over the years, a planned contributory system so that, over and above the basic requirements guaranteed as a right of all, there shall be the opportunity of achieving a higher standard through the contributions made during the period of useful work. However, I am not going to hammer away at that now, except to say that we have brought up this program in the House of Commons year after year and will continue to press for the implementation of such a program.
At the moment, however, with the majority this government has it is obvious that we are not going to get it this session. Therefore we have to deal with what is before us now, which is an increase of $10. Ten dollars is useful. It will be welcomed by the senior citizens. However I hope that in addition to the further planning that must follow, some method may be found to make sure that the

senior citizens reap the benefit of the increase. It is my opinion that in regard to the increases in the past a great many of our senior citizens have never received any benefit whatsoever. The reason for this is that the landlords thought the increase was for them and they made sure they got it by immediately raising the rents, so that our senior citizens did not receive any benefit at all. I do not know of any way, except through the medium of publicity, to achieve this result, but I wish there were some way of guaranteeing that the benefit will go to those senior citizens for whom it is intended.
I am sorry-and I must admit it-that the increase could not be more. There is no question whatsoever, and we stated this not only last session but in previous sessions, that the absolute minimum should be $75 a month. When we consider the rents and the cost of living today I do not know how a government that calls itself responsible, that tells us so often how its heart bleeds for these people, could possibly have restricted the increase to $10.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Only every four years.


Harold Edward Winch: I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for York-Humber because I too have been interested in senior citizens' housing for many, many years. As a matter of fact, I was and still am a life trustee of the first low rental senior citizens housing project built on the North American continent. My friend the Minister of Public Works knows of the work of the New Vista society, where the finest houses and apartments are made available on a self-sustaining financial basis, because this is demanded by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, at rents that originally, on the first units, were $21 a month. These emits have gone up year by year, and the latest units have rented at $35 a month. But even that is mighty cheap rent for an apartment or a house. When we consider that the old age pensioner gets $55 a month, which is now going up to $65, and he must pay out of that anything from $21 to $35 a month, we can appreciate what the senior citizen is left with on which to live; and that is only if he happens to live in the type of housing mentioned by the hon. member or the type of housing I have mentioned. With this recognition I think there should be a basic minimum of $75 right now.
Mr. Chairman, I shall not speak at any length on this matter but I do hope the government will take a second look at this measure, reconsider their proposal and see whether it is not possible to establish the basic minimum of $75 a month which they themselves say should be established.

I hope, also, that the government will try to do something to assist the old age pensioner, if it is only by speaking to these scurrilous landlords through the medium of the press, radio or television, by seeing that the $10 increase after this bill goes through will benefit the senior citizens.
I also hope the government will consider bringing in amending legislation so that there is not discrimination. I think it is unfair to say that there is a need to increase the old age pension and then to say, "But if we do increase it, in certain categories we are going to take it back from you in some other way". I refer to retired M.P.'s over the age of 70. They do not receive very much in the way of pension. To qualify for the full $3,000 pension they have to be here 16J years. But old age pension must come off that figure. Therefore all we are doing by increasing the old age pension, which they get as a right, is to reduce by $10 their pensions as ex-members of the House of Commons. To my mind that is getting a little too picayune for a responsible government and decent thinking in the House of Commons. What applies to this group also applies to other categories of pensioners. I think the bumt-out pensions are another example.
I believe that if an increase is required it should be given across the board and there should not be this type of discrimination. If the cost of living has gone up for one category of pensioner, it has also gone up for another. I hope these things will be considered and that we may perhaps have a few more direct answers on this question as to what is the universal plan and whether it could not be speeded up. Although my name is Winch, not Moses, and I cannot prophesy, I will say that if it does not come in this session, it will come in next session but perhaps this government will not have the opportunity of bringing it in.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a very good prophecy.
(Translation):


Mr. Paul:: Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note the nervous agitation among hon. members opposite today in the face of the resolution submitted by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith). It is amusing to note the apprehension with which hon. members opposite are expecting the day when each and all of us will have to account to the electorate.
First of all, I want very sincerely to thank the government, and especially the Minister of National Health and Welfare, for the very
Old Age Security Act
generous gesture in favour of our older citizens in Canada. And, on behalf of my constituents, I want to express to the government and to the Minister of National Health and Welfare my most sincere appreciation.
There is no doubt that this government will have the support of that class of society which, in contrast with what happened under Liberal administration, is today receiving this government's full attention.
While listening to the speech of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, it seemed to me that the Christmas season was still with us. I think that the government has been remarkably generous to our older citizens.
I thought I saw three wise men on the opposition benches: my good friend the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill)-the man with the two flags- who were somehow looking for their guiding star. They fortunately were able to locate that star in the gallery facing us, because that light, that guiding star, was Maurice Lamontagne, the power behind the Liberal party.


An hon. Member:: A shooting star, that's it.


Rémi Paul: There we saw our three wise men seeking a way to satisfy the people, because of the coming election. Then, what an uproar when members of the opposition found out about the measures proposed in the speech from the throne. They sent out an urgent call to all the big guns of the Liberal party, asking them to come to a convention at the Chateau Laurier and try to block the welcome measures the government intended to submit to the people.
There we saw, once again, the power behind the throne: Maurice Lamontagne, Mike Sharp and Walter Gordon, striving to find a means, or at least an election platform, to go one better than the Conservative government with its proposed legislation. They were no doubt brilliantly advised by Mr. Coyne, ex-governor of the Bank of Canada, who, a few years ago, asked the Canadian people to tighten their belts, to live according to their means.
The suggestions of the power behind the Liberal party may be behind those remarks made by the hon. member for Essex East about what will be the new policy of the Liberal party when they get back in power.
Fortunately, hon. members of the opposition need have no fear. They will have plenty of time to review and revise their electoral platform, because what they are offering today

Old Age Security Act
has not much appeal tor it ill becomes them to offer the Canadian people what they denied them in 1957.
For my part, I find very strange this attitude of a member of the other place, an exminister of the Mackenzie King cabinet; because, if I refer to page 28 of the Senate Hansard-


Mr. Denis:: You do not mean Mr. Courte-manche, I hope?


Rémi Paul: No, it is not Mr. Courtemanche.


An hon. Member:: Senator Bouffard?


Rémi Paul: It is a Liberal senator, the Hon. Mr. Crerar, who spoke against old age pensions. And even if I speak a very bad English, I think it would be interesting, for the enlightenment of hon. members of this house, to read what the hon. Senator Crerar said in the Senate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Order, order.


Rémi Paul: It is a Liberal senator, the Hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) should want to call me to order. Well, I think it would be better for him to start himself to put order in the mess now existing in the Liberal party, since the Liberals are obliged to review their philosophy constantly.
Try to find a publicity system, a program that might meet the needs of the people, and not only a policy preached in the province of Quebec and another one in the other provinces. You should find a uniform policy which is in keeping with the interests of the country as a whole, regardless of whether those interests are those of the French speaking minority or of the English community. You should make it a point of honour to preach the same policy of national unity that we, members of the Conservative party, have been preaching since we have been in power.
The hon. Senator Crerar-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the rules of the house do not allow to quote remarks that have been made in the other place.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, I willingly submit to your ruling. But I think those words will have been sufficiently identified by now.
The hon. senator has this to say at page 48-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I must remind the hon. member once again that he cannot refer to speeches made in the other place, that is in the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: You may refer to a press clipping if you want to.


Rémi Paul: The hon. senator criticized the program put forward and supported this afternoon by the hon. member for Essex East-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order.


Rémi Paul: -he knows that there are personalities in the Liberal party-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I think that the hon. member has quite an inaccurate idea of the rules of this house, which definitely forbid quoting here what has been said in the Senate. Such ruling is mentioned in Beau-chesne and is well known in this house.


Rémi Paul: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. However, I think almost every hon. member knows about that and, in case the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) does not know it, he should read the newspapers which commented on certain statements made by prominent personalities of the Liberal party who do not approve of this old age pension increase to $65 a month and even less the increase to $75 a month.
I feel that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) tried, like a brilliant criminologist, to justify the policy adopted by his party in 1956 and in 1957 when a $6 a month increase was granted to our senior citizens.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate-
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, the hon. gentleman has described me by a term which, I think, is not applicable to me. I am not a criminal lawyer and I just want to assure the hon. gentleman that I sign my own letters; I do not get my secretary to do it.
(Translation):


Rémi Paul: It was never my intention to consider the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate as a member of the bar. Not at all. I merely identified him as a champion of lost causes.
The hon. member tried to make the Canadian people forget the meagre increase of $6 granted in 1957.


Azellus Denis: At that time, we did not have a deficit.


Rémi Paul: All the more reason. The hon. member for St. Denis should have risen in this house at the time to criticize the government for such lack of generosity. But at that

time, the hon. member for St. Denis did not have the gift of gab. He got it back only in 1958 when he found himself in the opposition.
At that time the government should have increased pensions by much more than $6 a month. This afternoon-


Azellus Denis: Will the hon. member allow me a question?


Rémi Paul: Let the hon. member for St. Denis wait until I am through with my speech. That will give him a chance to make up for all the times he has not spoken since he has been in the house.


An hon. Member:: Well said.


Azellus Denis: I am glad because if I had spoken as you did-


An hon. Member:: He cannot do it.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, when there was a budget surplus of hundreds of millions, in 1957, the Liberal government should have given more to the people. They failed to do so. In those years, the Liberal party was living in an ivory tower; they did not care about the people, they made fun of them. That is mostly why in 1957 and in 1958 especially, the Canadian people found them too irresponsible and gave the Conservative government a mark of confidence unequalled in the political history of our country.
When we see the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate show a somewhat unusual edginess, we ask ourselves what charges we have laid against the Liberal party. None whatever, and yet, in the speech he made only a few minutes ago, he tried to show the people that the $6 increase given at that time, considering the present value of the dollar, was just as high as the one the senior citizens of our country will be getting when this measure is adopted.
But the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate failed to move the heart of the people. I am sure that the verdict will be the one that a criminal knows is coming when he is brought to judgment in court before his peers.
The expectation of the verdict induces the accused in a state of nerves which sometimes prevents him from realizing the seriousness of the situation. That is the situation where the Liberal party finds itself today and as a result of the election, the verdict brought down by the people against the Liberal party will be a verdict of guilty. So there is no doubt that the Conservative government will be re-elected.
Old Age Security Act
Besides, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate blamed the government today for introducing that legislation as a pre-election measure. And the hon. member stated that we are hearing once again, a lot of promises by the Conservative government.
Well, when he visits the province of Quebec, I think the hon. member should try to get away from the reform club a little more. He would then realize that the people of the province of Quebec have had enough of the Liberal promises. At the next elections, the population of the province of Quebec will not put any faith in the promises of the Liberals, for they will be like all those that were made in previous general elections.
As a matter of fact, according to these promises, taxes should not be increased. Old people should get $10 more a month, according to their needs; the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is shocked to find that the increase proposed by the present government amounts to only 30 cents a day. Has the hon. member forgotten, like his colleagues, that in 1956-57 the increase granted to our senior citizens was only 20 cents a day? Furthermore, when the Liberal party legislated in another sphere of our social welfare system, that of family allowances, it granted at that time an increase of only 3 cents a day.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that the increase of $10 will be adequate, or at least almost adequate to enable the old people of the province of Quebec to pay the higher taxes introduced by Mr. Jean Lesage and his Liberal government.
The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) seems to blame the government for wanting to introduce a bill which might call for an amendment to clause 94A of the British North America Act. The hon. member stated this afternoon-and he will correct me if this assertion is incorrect-that a constitutional amendment is not needed to change the present clause defining the powers of the federal government for granting old age pensions to the aged. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not share his views on this point, because the British North America Act reserves certain rights for the provinces especially in matters of civil law. So the hon. member will understand that I cannot follow him there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They might at least make a start.


Rémi Paul: The hon. member just said "They should at least make a start". Not only have we started-whereas hon. members opposite never did start-but we have started, as witnessed by the letter tabled in the house

Old Age Security Act
by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker), which will be found on page 83 of Hansard. It will be noted that the Prime Minister, in that letter to the Quebec premier, gives his reasons for having to introduce the proposed bill. He says that he had hoped that negotiations concerning the amendment and the return of the Canadian constitution would give an opportunity of discussing that problem. But as that amendment will call for many further meetings, the government will call a special federal-provincial conference for that purpose, in order to provide an opportunity of amending clause 94A so that this country may have still more adequate social legislation, in accordance with the present needs of our population.
If the hon. member would refer to page 76 of Hansard, he would find the following statement by the right hon. Prime Minister:
My colleagues and I had hoped that agreement would have been reached by this time on a means of amending Canada's constitution in Canada and that this change in section 94A would have been one of the first amendments made under the new arrangements. It is now evident that it will take some further time to reach agreement on the methods of amendment of the constitution in Canada and it will therefore be necessary to proceed by way of an address to the Queen, as in the past, requesting that the amendment be made by the parliament at Westminster.
Hon. members opposite, here is a concrete effort made by our government to improve the entire social legislation now existing in this country.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the Liberals are somewhat unhappy with this welfare legislation. They feel that they have to do some outbidding. I cannot speak for the people of other provinces. I know their representatives in this house, but I am not familiar with the trend of community thinking in each province. However, I know the right-minded element in the province of Quebec, whose motto is: "Je me souviens".
Well now, the people of the province of Quebec will remember, on the one hand, the promises of the Liberal party and, on the other hand, the accomplishments of the Conservative government, and I am convinced that on the day of the next federal election, they will also remember all the legislation that the Liberal party should have brought forward at the time, when it was showing financial surpluses in the administration of the country.
The Conservative party has faced its obligations-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Like family allowances, which are due to the Liberal party.


Rémi Paul: I think that the hon. member will feel still more fidgety when he learns of the other social measures which our government will probably offer the Canadian people.
Mr. Chairman, I heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), during his speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, upbraid the Minister of Finance, (Mr. Fleming) for having introduced budgets showing deficits of more than $2.4 billion. I must say that we are proud of them, because the Conservative government has inherited a situation prepared by the thoughtlessness, indifference and neglect of the Liberal regime which, in 1956, came before the people to make it believe that prosperity was just around the corner in Canada. But it is only in 1957 that the Prime Minister tabled in the house the report which then showed clearly the true economic situation of our country.
Canadians will not forget this meanness, this administrative dishonesty on the part of the Liberal party. They will not hesitate to put their trust once again in a government which was not afraid to contemplate a $2,700 million deficit to meet the economic situation, in peacetime, for peaceful undertakings, while the Liberal party, in five years of war, put the country into debt for a sum of $17 billion.
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, Canadians will renew their trust in the present government, because they realize today that it is the only one in a position to look after their needs, to meet their aspirations and, above all, to grasp the economic evolution we are now going through. What we need is a Conservative government-not just a government full of empty promises, not a government which is only trying to bid higher, not a government with pangs of remorse for having been so neglectful, but without any repentance nor the will to amend its ways.
We must fear that if the Liberal party came back to power, their administration would be as far away from the people as it was from 1950 to 1957.
I feel certain that the Conservative government which shows such brilliant leadership in the administration of this country will be returned to power. Better still, I am sure that the province of Quebec constituencies which, by inadvertence, elected a Liberal to this house in 1958 will, this time, return a Conservative member.
(Text):


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

Mr. Fulton (for the Minister of National Health and Welfare) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C -54 to amend the Old Age Security Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



OLD AGE ASSISTANCE ACT


Jay Waldo Monteith: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Assistance Act to increase to sixty five dollars per month the maximum amount of assistance in respect of which payments may be made to the provinces under the provisions of that act, and to increase the total amount of allowable income, inclusive of assistance, by one hundred and eighty dollars a year in the case of an unmarried person and three hundred and sixty dollars a year in the case of a married person.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Martineau in the chair.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The amendments
proposed in this resolution are twofold, Mr. Chairman.
The first proposal is to share with the provinces, if they agree, a further increase in the maximum amount of old age assistance bringing this figure to $65 a month, the same as for old age security.
The second proposal, again subject to provincial agreement, is to increase the income ceilings covering both the assistance payable and the amount of outside income by $180 annually in the case of unmarried recipients and by $360 a year in the case of married persons.
The considerations which prompted an increase in the amount of old age security benefit from $55 to $65 a month apply with equal force to the maximum benefit payable under old age assistance. Certainly if it is desirable to raise the benefits under old age security to $65-and we all agree that it is desirable-we can hardly do less for old age assistance recipients in the 65 to 69 age group, all of whom are in need of assistance to a greater extent than are many of those receiving old age security.
As a by-product of these actions there are, of course, advantages in terms of administrative efficiency and of convenience to the recipients in having the maximum level of benefit payable under old age assistance the same as the amount of benefit payable under old age security when recipients of the former reach the age of 70.
Old Age Assistance Act
With the approval of the present amendments, Canada's provisions for old age assistance will compare favourably with any assistance program in the world. In fact, the new maximum ceiling will be higher than those prevailing in countries like Australia, New Zealand and Denmark which have a comparable type of assistance program. Furthermore, over and above our old age assistance maximum, there is the possibility of additional amounts being paid to meet special circumstances where the provinces wish to participate in this respect under the unemployment assistance program.
As compared with the United States, our situation is also favourable. In that country, for example, the average payment per recipient for old age assistance in August 1961 was $68.44. With the higher maximum of $65 now being proposed, it can be expected that the average payment under Canadian legislation will be very close to that available under the United States program. This, of course, is quite apart from the additional payments available in Canada under unemployment assistance for which, I might point out, there is no counterpart at the federal level in the United States.
On this matter of unemployment assistance, several of the provinces-and particularly those which have large numbers of people in high-cost metropolitan areas-have been making additional payments to pensioners over and above the existing $55 a month benefit. Based upon returns for June 1961 which are now complete for New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, the federal share of such assistance payments in these four provinces alone has been running at the rate of $8 million a year for recipients of old age security and the three categorical aid programs. Information of a comparable date from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland which are also making additional assistance payments shared by the federal government is not yet available. It is apparent, however, that the total federal share in the current fiscal year will exceed $10 million.
The increase in maximum old age assistance benefits of $10 a month or $120 a year necessitates, of course, an adjustment in the overall income ceilings on the basis of which eligibility for assistance is determined. As the resolution indicates, the maximum allowable income, inclusive of benefits, for a single person is to be raised by $180 a year and for a married person by $360 a year.
The committee will no doubt have noted that these new levels go beyond what would be required to permit recipients to receive the full benefit of the increase in maximum payments. This has been accomplished through

Old Age Assistance Act an increase of 20 per cent in the amount of outside income a recipient may have without reduction of the maximum benefit. This means simply that a recipient can now earn more money before his pension benefit is affected.
The pattern of administration for old age assistance, of course, has been developed on the basis of co-operation with the provinces which for the purpose of this program include the territories. The federal treasury contributes 50 per cent of the cost of payments made by the provinces to the individual recipients. Under these arrangements, implementation of the higher maximum benefit and the higher income ceilings now being proposed will depend upon action being taken by each province. We sincerely hope that the provinces will consider it possible, as they have in the past, to make these new increases available to the recipients of old age assistance within their respective jurisdictions.
In March, 1961, there were 100,184 recipients under the old age assistance program. It is anticipated that the proposals now before the house will cost something in the order of $14.4 million of which the federal share will be $7.2 million. I think that is all I need say at this stage, Mr. Chairman, and I trust that the resolution will receive the unanimous support of the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, once again we are discussing an amendment to an act that gives assistance to an important and large section of the Canadian people. This amendment is an amendment to an act that was introduced in this house by a Liberal administration. Perhaps it seems unnecessary to remind hon. gentlemen that this measure and the one that preceded, as well as those to follow, are based on acts introduced by Liberal governments under two great prime ministers, Mr. Mackenzie King and Mr. St. Laurent.


James Ross Fulton: You could hardly avoid going along with them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: These observations made by some hon. gentlemen and particularly at this moment the unimportant interruption of the Minister of Justice-


Edmund Davie Fulton: It was unimportant because I was giving you credit.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -make it necessary to point out that this government has been lacking in originality in the projection of the social welfare vision which the Prime Minister said in 1957 and 1958 he was going to implement for the Canadian people. All that this government has been able to do is to take basic acts introduced by its prede-

cessor and, in the light of current economic conditions, try to make some necessary and belated modifications.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Improvements.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will support this resolution, but in supporting it we must point out once again that in the light of the present cost of living and the assurances in that connection by the Prime Minister, in the light of economic and social conditions that prevail in this country, so largely contributed to by government policies or lack of government policies, this proposed increase is not adequate. It is not adequate for the reasons that were stated by the leader of the Liberal party when he enunciated our program for a contributory scheme of old age pensions on January 5 last.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The first one or the amended one?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This particular plan of old age assistance is one that arises out of the action taken by the government of Canada in 1950 when the federal government assumed full responsibility for old age pensions for all its citizens 70 years of age and over. When this was done, following the concurrence of the provinces in giving to the federal government the power to impose contributions under the present section 94A of the British North America Act, the federal government agreed that it would assume half of the cost of old age assistance for those Canadian citizens between the ages of 65 and 70.
As the minister has said, this particular resolution depends for its operation not only on the act of this parliament but on the concurrence of and implementation by each of the 10 provincial governments. I was, therefore, surprised when I heard the minister tonight, not to hear any reference made by him with respect to whether or not the provinces had been consulted in this matter. The minister still does not take advantage of this observation to indicate whether the provinces have been officially apprised of the position of the government.


Jay Waldo Monteith: May I interrupt for one moment to indicate to the member for Essex East that the provinces have been apprised.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is very important information which the minister, only because of his heavy preoccupations, I am sure, forgot to disclose during the course of his remarks. He has not yet told us, however, if all of the provinces have been in communication with the federal government.

He has not indicated if they have all agreed to share with the federal government in the implementation of the proposed inadequate increase, and inadequate it is because we all know that the old age assistance plan is one that operates on the means test. While the means test has been liberalized, and I use the word "liberalized" with good justification, nevertheless we know that the inadequacy of some of the provincial supplementary payments does not provide the kind of assistance even under this measure which is necessary to meet these cases.
It would be interesting to know whether or not all of the provinces have agreed to share in the proposed increase. The minister sits in his place and gives no indication, Mr. Chairman. I can only take it that the exchanges that have taken place between the federal government and the provincial governments in this regard were of a very pro forma character. I can well understand what certain members of this house would have said if we had followed that course had we been sitting on the benches occupied by the minister and his colleagues, where we soon shall be. I can very well understand how they would talk about lack of consultation.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Did he, in 1957, have the agreement of all the provinces to the increase of $6 in the assistance acts before they came into being?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not the point I was making. The point I was making was that we had told the provinces what we proposed to do. We had sought to obtain from them their consent and their participation.
Now, properly, much has been made of our contributory plan. The Prime Minister caused His Excellency, in pronouncing the speech from the throne, to suggest that before we could embark upon any federal contributory scheme there would have to be the fullest co-operation with the provinces, even on those matters upon which all are agreed there is no constitutional impediment. Nevertheless, notwithstanding that, we have no detailed explanation from the minister as to the character of the replies the provinces have given. We do not know, nor does the minister seem willing to indicate, if when we pass this resolution, as I hope we soon will, the people of Canada may count upon this being fully effective because of the prior consent having been given by the provinces.
Old Age Assistance Act
I do not say the minister should wait until that consent is obtained. Of course, this parliament is sovereign within those matters coming within section 91 of the British North America Act. It ought to be possible, when we are considering a measure such as this, not to mislead the Canadian people into believing that because we pass this particular measure and it becomes law, it will mean that there will be one additional cent in the pockets of those who are able to qualify for assistance under the Old Age Assistance Act. Until each province tells us that they accept this measure we will have had only a declaration of intention from this federal parliament. This is another device by this government, another fagade, in their pre-election attempt, to convey the impression that more is being done when such is not the case.
Now, we say that this amount is inadequate. When the leader of the Liberal party outlined the Liberal party's contributory plan on January 5, he went farther and proposed as part of that plan that the Liberal party, in co-operation with the provinces, would be ready first to increase old age assistance to $75, rather than $65; second, to grant old age assistance to unmarried women and widows at age 60.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Did you consult the provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Third, he proposed to pay supplementary old age assistance of $20 a month to married women age 70 and over, in cases where the $130 a month pension for a married couple leaves them in need of further assistance.
Those are further modifications which would make our Old Age Assistance Act more effective, more in keeping with existing economic and social facts facing our senior people than the continuation of a pattern which was introduced by their predecessors long before the Conservative party had exhibited any interest in social welfare provisions.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Are you going to tell the provinces again?


Paul Joseph James Martin: When we are the
government, we will not delay telling the provinces. I will tell you what we have done. We are not the government and consequently we have no official contact with the provinces. The leader of the Liberal party, when he enunciated this program on January 5, told the people of Canada; and it is the people of Canada who will make the decision. One of these days the people of Canada are going to decide whether or not they regard the present administration as capable of developing our social security program in

Old Age Assistance Act a manner consistent with the need and in a way that could be characterized as a responsible approach to making these social measures effective.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The answer will be yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now, this statement of policy which was made by the Leader of the Opposition, and which I repeat tonight, was based on considerations that did not arise only because of this session, that did not arise only because we were in the throes of a general election. If this government wanted to give evidence of its good faith in this matter, it would not have waited until a few weeks or a few months before the dissolution of parliament. It would have introduced these measures earlier when the need was obviously present, having in mind the cost of living, the standard which the Prime Minister established for the use of the government in determining what amount should be provided by way of increase in these social measures. In 1958 we proposed at our national Liberal convention a number of amendments to the old age assistance program. One of them was the extension of old age assistance to unmarried women and widows 60 years of age.
The Minister of Labour is listening to me with care at this moment, as he usually does. I am sure he will recognize that if there is one improvement in this particular measure that is needed, it is this particular proposal. The Minister of Labour will observe that, while we are going to vote for this measure, we regard it as inadequate because the amount is inadequate. We believe in a $75 old age assistance program, to be shared with the provinces, and we believe that there should be an extension of old age assistance to unmarried women and widows 60 years of age. The Minister of Labour knows how important this would be, particularly at the present time in view of the high level of unemployment and in view of the high distress that consequently prevails. In consequence, so many people would profit from this kind of assistance.


Michael Starr: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Essex East has said certain things. I consider these to be election promises, and they have no intention of carrying them out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope, Mr. Chairman, you will see that the rules are observed carefully, particularly by ministers.
We accept this resolution so far as it goes. We regret its shortcomings for the reasons I have given. However, we regret it for another reason, and that is that all this government is able to do in terms of social welfare measures is to build their inadequate projections, not on a foundation of their own, but on a foundation that was conceived by the Liberal party.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the house leader would indicate the order in which the items will be taken up tomorrow, or if it is now the intention of the government to carry out the undertaking given by the Prime Minister on the opening day of parliament and resume the debate on the throne speech.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is absolutely wrong.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are very sensitive about it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow the business will be as follows: Second reading of the bill to amend the Old Age Security Act, followed by the three resolutions in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, which are numbers 13, 14 and 15 on today's order paper.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister say whether the bill is now available for distribution in both languages?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Once the bill has received first reading-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It did tonight, an hour ago.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -the matter is in the hands of Mr. Speaker and his staff.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That does not answer the question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, that does not answer the question.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well, for Pete's sake check on it.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 6, 1962