1962-02-08

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1962, was presented by Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon) moved:: That the message of His Excellency, together with the estimates presented this day, be referred to the committee of supply.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillingate):: If I might rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the motion the minister has made, I should like to say that the committee of supply, as Your Honour will recall, was set up pursuant to an undertaking given by the Prime Minister on the first day of the session that certain items would be dealt with in the committee before the address had been dealt with. It seems to me, sir, that in the circumstances and in order to preserve that understanding with respect to the committee of supply, perhaps the minister's motion could stand until the conclusion of the debate on the address.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: If I may speak to this, I would say that the undertaking given was correctly stated by the hon. member today. The other day he endeavoured to make a correction in Hansard to bring what he had said into line with what he endeavoured to lead the house to believe had been the undertaking. The undertaking will be maintained and there will be no steps taken in respect to the supplementary estimates even though the motion is accepted today.
I want to make this clear at the same time. The undertaking covered that for which the consent of the house was necessary, namely departing from the speech from the throne in order to deal with those two matters of supply. For other matters of business, the speech from the throne can be interrupted at any time by a decision of the government. The undertaking had to do with that for which the house must give consent and which otherwise could not be dealt with, that is, supply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of privilege arising out of what the Prime Minister has just said. I have no desire whatever to get into any controversy with the Prime Minister about what he may have said on the opening day. However, I did get up in my place in this house on Monday, not having had an opportunity because of a previous engagement to look at the transcript of what I had said on Friday, and I said to the house what I said on that occasion. It has always been the rule of this house that it is the member himself who determines what he said. My intervention on Friday would have had no significance whatever if it had been in the form in which it was transcribed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the matter raised as a point of order has now been disposed of. It was not really a point of order. The hon. member has indicated what he stated was his matter of privilege.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-57, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ernest James Broome: The purpose of this amendment to the Juvenile Delinquents Act, Mr. Speaker, is to provide for the secrecy of reports filed and for the records in the trial of juveniles, and to provide further that such records be destroyed on a date five years after such trial. This bill was originally introduced by the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Dorion), and I have taken it over.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



COMPANIES ACT


Ernest James Broome: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-58, to amend the Companies Act (financial statements).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Proposed Legislation COMPANY DIRECTORS



BOARDS OF FEDERAL COMPANIES TO HAVE MAJORITY OF CANADIANS

Ernest James Broome: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-59, respecting company directors (directors' qualifications).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ernest James Broome: The purpose of this bill is to require that all companies created by the parliament of Canada be managed by a majority of directors who are either Canadians or Canadian residents.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. REPRESENTATION ACT



AMENDMENT TO CHANGE NAME OF CONSTITUENCY

Mr. R. S. MacLellan (Inverness-Richmond) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-60, to amend the Representation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: The purpose of this bill is to change the name of the constituency of Inverness-Richmond to Inverness-Richmond-West Cape Breton, as the electoral district includes part of the county of Cape Breton as well as the counties of Inverness and Richmond.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-61, to quieten doubts that have arisen concerning the constitution of and the exercise of powers by the Canadian wheat board and for the resolving thereof (Canadian wheat board).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


James Norris Ormiston: The purpose of this bill is to make an effort to obtain clarification of the powers of the Canadian wheat board to grant or withhold licences to ship grain inter-provincially. The remedy suggested is a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada for an opinion. The immediate remedy, pending delivery of the judicial opinion, is the possible transfer of the issuance of such licences from the wheat board to the Minister of Agriculture, who will be accountable to parliament with respect to the granting and review of such licences.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT


Hon. Gordon Churchill (for the Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act to increase the maximum liability at any time of importers under outstanding instruments the payment of which is guaranteed by the corporation under section 21a of the act, from $200,000,000 to $300,000,000: and to provide further for a certain change in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposiiion):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask this question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but in his absence perhaps the Minister of Finance will be able to deal with the matter. Has Cuba been added to the area control list which governs countries under communist rule and communist domination?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think it would be appropriate for me to bring this question to the attention of my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce.



REPORTED REMARKS ON C.B.C. TELEVISION BY U.S. SENATOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has he any comment to make on the remarks made at 10 o'clock last night on the "News Magazine" program of the C.B.C. by a Senator Keating from New York, who said he found it disappointing that Canada did not go along with the United States trade embargo? The senator also criticized the Canadian people and the government of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking a question which has been raised each day for two or three days. Of course if the Prime Minister feels that something has now developed which should be imparted to the house, it is his privilege to reply.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the broadcast in question, but it is a matter of

some interest, I am sure, to Canadians to have a United States senator telling Canadians over the Canadian national television network what is proper for Canadians. Incidentally I should like to point out this fact, that very few realize what the resolutions were that were passed by the organization of American states. The resolution with regard to economic relations, which is No. 8, resolved upon the immediate suspension of trade with Cuba in arms and implements of war.
We have consistenly followed that course in our dealings with Cuba during a considerable period. It also directs the O.A.S. council to study the feasibility and desirability of extending the suspension to other items. It is of interest that the vote was 16 to 1 in favour of this resolution, with four abstentions, Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico and Chile. Canada's stand has been that in reference to military and strategic commodities we would not trade. It is of interest that the organization of American states has now agreed on the course that we followed voluntarily in the past.



PRODUCER REPRESENTATION ON CARIBBEAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. Since I have not been able to give the minister notice, perhaps he will prefer to take the question as notice today and reply tomorrow. My inquiry has to do with the Canadian trade commission which is at present travelling around the Caribbean area under the auspices, I believe, of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
Inasmuch as the Newfoundland fish buyers and exporters are represented on this commission, will the minister say why the producers, the fishermen themselves, are not represented on it?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I shall draw the question to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: On
February 5 I asked the Minister of Transport a question about the use of United States security guards in Canadian shipyards, and in his reply the minister said in part:
I will inquire and let him know tomorrow.
Has the minister the answer now?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: I am sorry. I have not the answer yet, but I shall get it very soon.



SPRINGHILL, N.S.-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON RAILWAY SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I may recall to the mind of the Minister of Transport a question I asked him some time ago about the railway line from Springhill Junction to Springhill, and inquire if the hon. gentleman has anything to report as a result of the investigations he undertook to carry out.


Léon Balcer: did not undertake to make any special investigation. I simply answered the question asked by the hon. member, and there is no change in the situation as far as I am aware.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister if he is able to say yet whether this railway is in fact being torn up?


Léon Balcer: The railway is still the property of a private company. If the hon. member wishes some information with regard to it he can get it from the private company.



RAND REPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether the report of the interdepartmental committee set up to study the recommendations of the Rand royal commission on coal has completed its work, and is the Prime Minister in a position to provide the house with a copy of this report or to comment upon the recommendations of this interdepartmental committee?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, following the report of the Rand royal commission an interdepartmental committee was set up for the purpose of looking into the report. It made its recommendations. But of course documents prepared under such circumstances are privileged and are not produced. However, I think I would not be transgressing if I said that examination of the recommendations did not convince the government that they would meet the overall problem over a period of years.
We realize the difficulties in Cape Breton and generally among mining communities in the maritimes. Concerning the Rand royal commission report, the section dealing with

Inquiries of the Ministry the Louisburg restoration and the like has been carried out. In regard to the other recommendations, the government is continuing to give serious study to the problems of the coal industry. We have, of course, provided subventions at a higher rate than ever before and everything that can be done for the coal industry will be done.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence based on an article by Knowlton Nash in the current issue of the Star Weekly magazine which states that "every day SAC bombers loaded with hydrogen bombs fly over Canada". Is it a fact that bombers loaded with hydrogen bombs do fly over Canada? If so, what Canadian clearance, if any, is required in connection with such flights?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: There has been no change in the situation which has prevailed, I think, since as far back as 1956. The matter has been dealt with here in the house on several occasions. The Prime Minister himself has more than once outlined what the situation is. For instance, on June 3, 1958 he dealt in detail with the subject raised by this question.
Essentially the position is that certain United States bombers fly over Canada at different times on routine flights. Each flight is individually cleared, and whatever weapons the planes may carry are inactivated, so there is no possibility of accident.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Since it would take about a 70 per cent increase in personal income tax or a 100 per cent increase in corporation income tax to meet next year's anticipated deficit, will the minister let the people know before the dissolution of parliament by how much our taxes will be increased?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the minister may not be ready to introduce his budget today.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. C. Coates (Cumberland):: 1 wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister comment on the terrible mining tragedy that occurred in the Saar basin in West Germany, which has taken an untold number of lives and resulted in a degree of human suffering almost beyond our comprehension?


John George Diefenbaker: When a similar tragedy struck Springhill a couple of years ago, nations all over the world offered their sympathy. There is a common bond among those who have coal miners in their countries, a recognition of the courage with which they daily walk in the face of peril in the discharge of their work. They and their families meet that peril with resolution and courage. What has happened in West Germany is another of those disasters which from time to time remind us of how much we owe to these men.
On behalf of the people and the government of Canada I have sent a message of sympathy to Chancellor Adenauer, together with an expression of hope that those who have suffered injury may be restored to health.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is he aware of the statement made last week by the newly elected president of the National House Builders Association, William McCance, that the extension of financing under the National Housing Act to older or existing houses-"would do more for the Canadian economy than any other single thing I can think of".
Is the government now prepared to reconsider this matter?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: The hon. member keeps repeating this question in different forms and in different guises. I may say that I always read what the president of this important association has to say in connection with housing. I continue to assure the hon. member that the matters he raises from time to time in different forms have had the attention of our department and of myself and that when any announcement can or may be made it will be made, regardless of whether or not the hon. member keeps on reminding us.


John Richard Garland: I was just trying to give the minister an opportunity of perhaps adding some more goodies before dissolution.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the government at the present time giving active consideration to improving the remuneration of rural mail couriers?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think that question would more appropriately be directed to the Postmaster General.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very happy to do so.


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: The rural mail couriers for years have tendered their own prices on the contracts for which they were competing, and they set their own salaries. I would think the hon. member would remember that fact from the days when he was sitting in for the then postmaster general, but I guess he did not pay much attention in those days.



NUCLEAR ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Douglas Jung (Vancouver Centre):: I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the statement reported to have been made by Prime Minister Macmillan on the resumption of nuclear tests?


Mr. Hellyer:: Did you have another caucus this morning?


John George Diefenbaker: The government of Canada was advised in advance by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States that an announcement of this nature would be made today in London and in Washington.
The situation created by the recent series of nuclear tests by the U.S.S.R. has given rise to a searching study of the defences of the western alliance, and has raised the question whether those tests had resulted in the U.S.S.R. strengthening its nuclear capability. It is clear that in examining measures which may be necessary to meet the increasing
Inquiries of the Ministry Soviet military capability, the government of the United States and the government of the United Kingdom have sought to avoid any action that might intensify the spiralling competition in nuclear armaments.
The failure to reach an agreement in the three power talks regarding the discontinuance of nuclear weapons tests is very regrettable. We believe that a supreme effort should now be made to work out a mutually acceptable solution to the problem of bringing under control the mounting stocks of nuclear weapons at the disposal of nations throughout the world.
With this objective in mind the Canadian government welcomes the action taken by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States in jointly proposing to Mr. Khrushchev that the forthcoming disarmament conference should be made the occasion for giving a new stimulus to the search for a disarmament agreement, and that the conference due to begin in Geneva on March 14 should be held initially at the level of foreign ministers.
In keeping with the position which the government has consistently taken on disarmament and nuclear testing, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be available to participate in this renewed attempt to seek practical solutions to the many problems with which the disarmament committee will be faced. As has been re-emphasized today by the simultaneous announcement in these two capital cities, this problem is one of overriding urgency. The task of securing disarmament is of ever increasing importance.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Minister of Labour if he is in a position to say whether he has had any reports on the inquiries made with respect to St. Boniface?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I have been thinking over the part of the question in which the hon. member requested me to get information indicating whether it is true that the municipal authorities in Brandon-


John Whitney Pickersgill: St. Boniface.


Michael Starr: -or rather St. Boniface were ordering the unemployed to enrol for survival courses. After thinking over that part of he question, it is my view that the question should be directed to the municipal authorities.

Disabled Persons Act DISABLED PERSONS ACT



AMENDMENTS TO INCREASE PAYMENTS AND ALLOWABLE INCOME

Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Disabled Persons Act to increase to sixty five dollars per month the maximum amount of allowance 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 allowance, 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: As in the case of the other assistance programs, Mr. Chairman, we are proposing two changes in the Disabled Persons Act, namely an increase in maximum benefit to $65 a month and an increase in income ceilings of $180 a year for a single person and $360 a year in the case of a married person.
With respect to the increase in income ceilings, I would draw the committee's attention to the fact that in this resolution also the proposed new levels are higher than would be necessary to give recipients the full benefit of the increase in pension payments. As is the case with old age assistance and blindness allowances, the new ceilings will provide an added advantage to recipients over and above the increased pension payments.
Mr. Chairman, the changes now being proposed are aimed at further improving a program which has proved of great benefit to thousands of persons across the country. In view of the fact that the costs involved are shared equally by federal and provincial governments, implementation of the higher maximum payments and income ceilings will, of course, require parallel action on the part of the provinces. It is our hope that the provincial governments will see fit to cooperate in this matter to the end that recipients of disability allowances throughout Canada may benefit fully from this latest federal initiative.
As for the financial implications of this resolution it will, of course, involve a substantial increase in federal outlays. In March, 1961 some 50,600 individuals were in receipt of disability allowances at an annual cost to the federal treasury of approximately $16,400,000. The total added outlays resulting from the changes now proposed are estimated at $6,600,000 a year, of which the federal share would be one half or $3,300,000.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to say very much about this resolution. It is the third or, I suppose, the fourth social security measure that has been introduced. It is a part of the package deal we have received which embodies, if I may put it this way, the quadrennial conscience and the electoral hope of the government.
We have supported these resolutions while complaining about their inadequacy in certain respects and the principles on which they are based in others. We will support this increase in disability allowances, a matter which, as with blindness allowances, appeals to the sympathy of all members of the house.
This increase is based on legislation introduced and passed in the house in June, 1954. It is interesting to note that when second reading of the bill was introduced at that time by my hon. friend from Essex East, who has done so much for social security progress in this country, he had this to say about the background of the legislation which is the basis for the changes that are being recommended today. I would point out that the legislation was introduced shortly after the election of 1953 and not before the election. Speaking on that occasion in moving second reading the hon. member, who was then minister of national health and welfare, said, as found on page 5329 of Hansard for June 1, 1954:
-I would emphasize again that this present legislation is based not on my authorship but on the example of others. I must say the real idea belongs to the Prime Minister. He made this offer .. . within a week of the holding of the last election. I mention that to indicate that I hope no one will say this represents an attempt to justify political promises made, because there were none made.
Then he added:
This represents a sincere attempt, in co-operation with the provinces, to supply another important development in what we hope is a responsible system of social security in this country.
That was the background, the genesis, of the legislation. Today we are asked to increase the disability grants made under that legislation, and in that way this proposal adds to the social security structure of our country. There has been a good deal of discussion about the effect of social security measures on our economy and progress and the position that Canada has achieved with regard to social security. A great deal was heard yesterday about international labour office reports which indicated or did not indicate the place that Canada held in the world in regard to the proportion of her national income devoted to social security measures. The fact is that social security legislative provisions can be a spur rather than a brake to our economy as well as representing social

progress. I remember having had something to say about this myself when we were discussing a pensions measure in the house on July 19, 1960, and it has a bearing on the measure before us. I said at that time, as found on page 6509 of Hansard:
As a responsible official opposition we do not ignore the relationship between social security and financial and economic resources. We know that no government that is responsible in the economic as well as the political sense of the word can do everything. We know that developing social security schemes must be related to the resources of the nation because there is only one way in which these schemes can be financed, namely, by us as citizens of the country. So we on this side do not ignore that aspect of the question and we never have as a party in the past.
Then I went on to say:
-it is clear to us, as I am sure it is clear to every hon. member of this house, that the claims of old age pensioners-
We were talking about old age pensioners, and this applies to those now receiving disability allowances.
-must be very high on the list of priorities when we are considering what more we can do in developing schemes for responsible social security and social progress.
In the same sense the claims of those who suffer from disabilities which prevent them from working and earning their own livelihood are very high on our list of priorities. There is in our minds a question as to the adequacy of this particular measure. Certainly if we applied the test once applied by the Prime Minister to the^ adequacy of social security payments there might be good reason to think that the increase recommended was not adequate, because the Prime Minister said on April 25, 1957, "A Conservative government would set payments high enough to meet needs". Whether this increase is high enough to meet needs is certainly debatable.
The increase in the disability allowances from $55 to $65 is to be shared with the provinces. The increase can only be brought into operation with the approval of the provinces and, as has been pointed out previously, we are only now asking through this legislation for the necessary approval so that the increase can be brought into effect.
Rather than the proposed increase to $65 -and this is consistent with the stand we have taken on other social security measures -we feel that these allowances should be raised to a minimum of $75, which would mean a proportionate increase in the income limits. In addition, Mr. Chairman, these disability allowances have to be related in our minds, of course, to the proposal for disability pensions as part of a contributory pension scheme. It is surely of the greatest possible
Disabled Persons Act
importance to have a pension scheme with disability benefits as well as disability allowances.
As we have in the case of the other resolutions, Mr. Chairman, we support the increase in this case from $55 to $65 to be shared with the provinces but we feel, as we have felt in the other cases, that the minimum should be $75 rather than $65.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact, Mr. Chairman, that the Leader of the Opposition has chosen to speak on this matter and to deal in general with the question of social security as well as the degree to which social security is of major importance today, I feel that I might be permitted to speak shortly on this matter and deal with the problem in general but with particular reference to the resolution now before the committee.
The Leader of the Opposition has stated his views with regard to this question. He has stated that the amount should be $75 a month. In general he has traversed in rather capsule form some of the arguments that have been advanced before. I intend to refer to the attitude of this government on the question of social security. I agree with him as to his general observations respecting need. I might add to what he has said about social security by saying that in the field of social justice there have been tremendous advances made in the last 30 or 40 years.
Now, speaking from memory, I recall that during the days of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, prime minister of the United Kingdom during the first five or six years of the present century, he was faced with a candidate in Scotland who advanced, amongst other ideas, certain reforms which he contended ought to be brought into effect. There was female suffrage, and assistance to those who were unemployed or unable to work and thereby deprived their families of the source of a proper livelihood. This candidate also advanced a suggestion for something in the nature of old age pensions. The then Liberal prime minister of the United Kingdom said that these doctrines were dangerous and would ultimately bring about the disintegration of the United Kingdom.
With the passing years, however, the need for accepting social security has become more and more apparent and has been accepted by all. In setting up a social security system, we must maintain the independence and freedom of the individual. Some there are who would set up a social security system very much like that in effect in some penal institutions, where you have everything but

Disabled Persons Act
your freedom. This does not apply, of course, in our country or those countries that accept the concepts that we do.
When this government came into power we said that, among other things, we would improve the amount of social security being paid. I intend to mention the question of deficits because I hear deficits mentioned from time to time. I am going to give the opposition an opportunity to point out which of these items they would have eliminated had they been in office. When you examine the record you will find that if this government had not advanced assistance to the provinces and, indirectly, to the municipalities, and had not increased social security to a reasonable level, we would not have had deficits during the last several years. I want to give the opposition this opportunity to point out which of these items they would not have inaugurated had they been in office.
Certainly they had a surplus in 1956-57. They had a surplus, but at that time when we asked them to increase the amount of social security, they said "We are paying as much as we can". I will give the necessary quotations in a moment to support that statement. Here they were, with the provinces asking for extra assistance, and the municipalities too because after all when the provinces have made available to them the necessary funds, those funds in turn go to the municipalities. They had a surplus of which they boasted, and when we asked them to do something more than a $6 increase in these various pension schemes the answer was that they were giving as much as they could. In other words they starved the old age pensioners. They starved those who were receiving blindness allowances. They starved the people in all these classifications in order to have a surplus. I am going to give them an opportunity to point out wherein they would have done otherwise.
In any country, no matter how effective the operation of private enterprise, there will always be those who, by reason of age or infirmity require assistance. Now, when the hon. gentlemen who represent-well, I suppose it is the C.C.F.-N.D.P.-speak about social security, they always say that the old parties do not give enough. I ask them to tell the house what extra payments and allowances have been made in the province of Saskatchewan, where a government of that party has been in power for about 18 years. An examination of their social security measures will show that that government generally pays less than several other provinces by way of assistance to the aged and to other groups. I give them this opportunity. They prate, and I ask them to place on the

record the facts in this connection. I await with interest the contribution they will make.
Those of us who believe in private enterprise think it is the prime and proper function of government to do everything it can to make the system function and assume an increasing measure of responsibility so there will be equalized opportunities for Canadians everywhere. The opposition talks about deficits. I would point out that there has been an increase in social security payments since 1956-57 of just about $1 billion. I underline that amount. In 1956-57 the amount expended was $1.3 billion, while the estimated amount this year is over $2.3 billion. There was a small portion of these increases due to legislation passed in 1957 before we assumed office.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A very high portion.


John George Diefenbaker: I beg your pardon?


John Whitney Pickersgill: A very high portion.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, the Liberal government put the hospital legislation on the statute books. Who paid for it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The taxpayers.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, the taxpayers. I am glad to hear that because some $180 million of our deficit is due to the fact that this legislation was on the statute books, and we had to meet the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the Prime Minister permit me to ask him a question?


John George Diefenbaker: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was going to ask him if
he objects to that legislation.


The Chairman:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I always find these interruptions from over there can be heard by the reporters but not by us, and they find their way into Hansard. I would ask members of the opposition what portion of this extra billion dollars would they have done without in order to have a surplus. That is a very pertinent question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The $500 million in extra interest charges.


John George Diefenbaker: What does that little lamb
say?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hundreds of millions of dollars in extra interest charges.


John George Diefenbaker: While the population has increased there have been substantial increases in individual grants, in old age pensions, in old age security, blind and disability allowances, veterans pensions, retired civil servants' pensions, health grants and hospital insurance. A moment ago I said that in the past

four years there has been a vast increase. Instead of indulging in generalities, why do the opposition not say who they would have cut out of the extra amounts that have been paid by this government?
I shall go back to what was said in 1957. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate interrupted me a minute ago. I think he has been under two flags. On October 25, 1957, when we were dealing with the $9 increase, he had some remarks to make. The $6 increase permitted the surplus which they had in 1956 but, according to members of the opposition, that was all that could be given then. On October 25, 1957 the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said:
I want to make a very few observations on the proposed legislation and I say at once, sir, I am going to support it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: Then he went on to say:
I am going to support it-
He repeats himself-
-but it does present a real problem for all of us who are conscientious representatives of constituents on the Atlantic seaboard. The effect of the legislation the government is now proposing will be-perhaps not for anyone more than myself and the hon. members for Burin-Burgeo and Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador-to give to the retired adults in many of our communities larger incomes than those of the working members of their families who have to contribute through the sales tax towards the payment of these pensions.
That was a strange argument to advance, that when we increased the old age pension by $9 the result was going to create difficulty for the hon. member. That, at least, affords an excuse for him. It shows why, when he was a member of the government, he allowed that government to increase old age pensions by only $6 in 1957.
I could quote from other remarks made at that time. I quote the hon. member for Essex East, but I shall do no more than quote from him because he is not with us today. On March 22, 1957 he said at page 2607 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, the budget debate is of more than usual significance this year.
He then went on to deal with the pensions, the amounts and so forth, and he wound up by saying:
If anyone will examine the situation and what has happened to the cost of living since 1952 he will see that the increase in the amount of pensions-15 per cent in its total effect-is very greatly in excess of the relatively slight increase that has taken place in the cost of living in that period.
This was at a time when the Liberal government had great surpluses. How did they get them? By starving those in need, by starving the blind, and by starving those who were 26207-1-43
Disabled Persons Act
crippled. I should like to read some more quotations. The hon. member for Essex East continued:
What we	on	this	side have sought	to	do is notto give in	to	the	reckless demands	of	my hon.
friend-
-some member of the C.C.F. party had asked for $75, and the hon. member for Essex East replied by saying:
What we	on	this	side have sought	to	do is notto give in	to	the	reckless demands	of	my hon.
friend nor have we on the other hand heeded the reactionary attitudes of others in this house. We have sought in accordance with what we believe to be our capacity to meet the need which we think exists in this country and I have no doubt that the people of Canada regard the attitude which we take in this matter as the responsible and proper attitude for us to assume.
In effect he said that $6 a month was all the then government could afford. Then there was an interruption:


Mr. Knowles:: Forty six dollars a month is the freedom to starve.


Mr. Martin:: My hon. friend says, "the freedom to starve." I will tell my hon. friend, for whom I have a high personal regard as he knows, that by the excessive demands that he has made from time to time he has made it more difficult in so far as getting acceptance of some of these measures is concerned.
In other words, anyone who wanted more than $6 was making it more difficult for the then minister of national health and welfare to increase the amount beyond $6. What a difference took place later in 1957, as recorded at page 669 of Hansard for 1957-58:


Mr. McCleave:: Your view of the $6 has changed also.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend will find if he is in this house as long as I have been that one of the best ways to get along is to recognize that you have to change your views.
That was an admission, and possibly it explains the change which has taken place in recent years.
Let us look at the record. I shall deal with the expenditures in each of the years 1956-57 and 1961-62. Our social justice payments for those two years include veterans pension allowance benefits but do not cover pensions paid to civil servants. I have already stated that a relatively small portion of the increase between those two comparative years resulted from the increases that were made in February, March and April of 1957, but the figures are as follows. For old age security payments, from $379.1 million to $606.6 million, an increase of 60 per cent. For old age assistance payments the federal share increased from $20.3 million to $30.7 million, an increase of 51 per cent. For blind and disability allowances the federal share has risen from $10.1 million to $20.3 million, an increase of 101 per cent; and that is before any consideration is given to

Disabled Persons Act
what is now being done under the bill now before the house. Health grants, including hospital construction grants, have increased from $36.3 million to $49 million.
I shall now deal with hospital insurance. As I said a moment ago, it was placed on the statute books before and we have had to raise the money since. My figures were far too low a moment ago when I mentioned the cost. There was no hospital insurance in 1956-57, in the days of the surpluses of which they boast. After having promised it for a generation and a half they placed the legislation on the statute books in a haphazard manner, to be applicable under certain circumstances and we have had to secure the money to make it possible.
With regard to hospital insurance, the first year was 1958-59. The increase has been from $54.7 million to $284.2 million. You begin to see where the deficits came from. I am asking hon. gentlemen opposite to enlighten the house and the country as to which items we were wrong in bringing in, because hon. members will recall that they supported them.
I have already mentioned social justice payments. What about veterans pensions? Veterans pensions in 1956-57 amounted to $175 million. Increases have been made since, and for 1961-62 the amount is $80 million more, bringing the figure to $255 million. Retired civil servants received $21 million in 1956-57; in 1961-62, $41 million. I could go on through the record in this way showing the increases that have taken place, increases that have been accepted by hon. members in all parts of this house. I give hon. gentlemen the opportunity, and I again issue that challenge, to tell me which of these items they would not have brought in. Or do they still have the view they had in 1957, that $6 was enough?
Now I come to the assistance of the provinces. I will deal first with unconditional grants. I will be interested to know whether the Leader of the Opposition is still opposed to shared programs. In other words, does he still believe what he said along this line when he spoke recently in the city of Quebec? Is he opposed to shared programs? If he is, the provinces across this country will have to impose very high taxation in order to maintain the present level of security.
What about the expenditures? Unconditional grants to the provinces in 1956-57 amounted to $552,653,000. I will take the next year because some changes were made. In 1957-58 the amount was $658,199,000. The estimated figure this year is $875,987,000. That represents an increase over 1956-57 of $323 million. When they say we do not act to

carry out our promise to the provinces, those statistics, which are unchallengeable, give the answer.
Now conditional grants, which represent federal contributions to programs shared with and administered by them. I again give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity of saying whether or not what he enunciated in Quebec is the policy of the new Liberal party. Or is it the policy enunciated in January, 1961 at the convention here in Ottawa, of increasing the amount of shared programs? Conditional grants, as I said, have greatly increased. In 1956-57 they amounted to $110,974,000. I want these figures understood because these grants, according to the Leader of the Opposition, are now to be frowned upon; these shared programs are no longer to exist; they are to be allowed to phase out. If they are phased out, what will happen to the individual in these provinces cannot be described as a phase-out.
What are the figures? They are $111 million, in round figures, in 1956-57 and $550 million in 1961-62. Now I deal with payments for the benefit of provincial institutions. In 1956-57 the figure was $25,725,000; for 1961-62 it is $44,048,000. In other words, in the few years we have been in office, in unconditional grants, in conditional grants and payments for the benefit of provincial institutions there has been an increase from $689,352,000 to $1,470,139,000, an increase of some $780 million. Will the opposition say that they will do away with these? All of these changes have been made and these extra benefits secured with no increase in income taxation.
Now I come to the shared programs. I thought the Leader of the Opposition must have been misreported in his speech in Quebec.


An hon. Member:: Like you.


John George Diefenbaker: I had read with interest the views expressed at the meeting of the grass dominated by the brass in January, 1961, and I was very much interested in the changes that have taken place.
Now let us see what will happen if these shared programs are done away with. Here is the proportion of total federal contributions to the provinces accounted for by shared programs. Again I repeat, it is the proportion of total federal contributions to the provinces. In 1956-57, taking Newfoundland as an example, the percentage was 26.5; in 1961-62 the estimate is 37.7 per cent. Prince Edward Island, from 22.3 per cent to 34.3 per cent; Nova Scotia, from 15.4 per cent to 32.9 per cent; New Brunswick, from 29.6 per cent to 36.8 per cent; Quebec, from 13.3 per cent in 1956-57 to 37.4 per cent in 1961-62;

Ontario, 11.8 per cent in 1956-57 to 34.8 per cent today; Manitoba, from 21.2 per cent to 42 per cent; Saskatchewan, from 20.1 per cent to 38.3 per cent; Alberta, from 14.1 per cent to 35.8 per cent, and British Columbia from 22.5 per cent to 46.7 per cent.
I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether or not he and his supporters are going to do away with these shared programs, as he said in his speech in Quebec. I ask him why he made that sudden change of front, having stated in January, 1961 that the very reverse is the policy of the Liberal party. I might go on from there. I think it is worth comparing the federal budget deficits with the increases in payments made to the provinces from April 1, 1957. The annual contribution in 1957 amounted to $689.4 million.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was all under Liberal legislation.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. Members opposite are now taking the credit for our giving far more than they ever considered was proper. We all build on the legislation of the past. That is the legacy of parliament. The only difference is that the people opposite starved the old age pensioners; they starved the provinces. We decided that increased assistance should be given, and the result of that assistance is that we have incurred deficits.
Now let me tell the committee the total increases as compared with the base year, 1956-57. The increase in the contributions to the provinces in the year 1957-58-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Under Liberal legislation. I was just pointing out to the Prime Minister that all the payments in 1957-58 were under legislation passed under a Liberal government. Not one sou came from the present government.


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly the reason I am mentioning the year 1957-58; the hon. member has just learned it now. I do so because I stated, the committee will remember, that there was a change made, and I want the figures to be correct. In 1957-58 the increase was $147.7 million over the year 1956-57. In 1958-59 the increase was $348.5 million as compared with the base year 195657; in 1959-60 the increase amounted to $574.7 million, and in 1960-61 it was $626.2 million. For the year 1961-62 the estimate is an increase of $780.7 million over the base year.
I am glad I have had the chance to explain that and to give the opposition an early opportunity to indicate which of these increases they would do without; because if they accept them, there must be a deficit unless taxation is increased. Hon. gentlemen opposite can take their choice; whichever 26207-1-43$
Disabled Persons Act
horn of the dilemma they find most comfortable, they may take. These are the facts. When hon. gentlemen opposite go about the country saying this government is a spending government, they should keep them in mind.
I have shown, now, whether or not increases have taken place, and the reason for those increases. What did hon. gentlemen opposite say in 1956 when they had a big surplus? The city council of Toronto got in touch with the hon. member for Essex East, and in this connection I read the headline of a press report dated May 8, 1956. "Government Can't Afford $50 Pension-Martin". That was when they had a surplus. That is when they had the surplus of which they boast. Then the article went on to say, under a Canadian Press dateline:
Health minister Martin has told city council the federal government cannot afford to raise old age pensions to $50 from $40 a month.
In a letter made public yesterday answering council's request for higher pensions, Mr. Martin said the raise would cost an additional $100 million a year This year the pension bill would be $400 million.
Mr. Martin said he thought council would agree the federal government, by providing 90 per cent of all funds now for old age pensions "is carrying out its fair share-"
And does the committee know what the hon. gentleman said? He had a suggestion to make. I hear hon. members opposite today talking about $75 a month, and they raise the ante every time they make a speech. A policy was announced on January 10 or 11 by the Leader of the Opposition on the question of pensions. They sent out documents, and I have one here. The Liberals have the answers, they say. Then they changed them after we had decided to raise the pension by $10 a month. But this is what was said in 1956 by the hon. member for Essex East:
Certain provinces are on their own initiative paying supplementary allowances or cost of living bonuses over and above the $40 basic pension. Among these is the province of Ontario, which has provided that the province and municipalities can share in a supplement of this kind on a means test basis. I am aware that Toronto is participating in this arrangement, but it is my understanding that the total for the province is approximately 1900 cases, of which approximately 1200 are in Toronto. I take it that these are the cases which, in the opinion of the provincial and municipal authorities, were felt to be in need of something more than the $40 a month pension. In relation to the total number receiving old age security or old age assistance, this is not a large percentage.
Then he went on to say this:
If there are still a number of persons who require some additional assistance, it does not seem unfair to suggest that the provincial and municipal governments also have some responsibility in this matter.
That was the attitude taken in 1956, and that, again, was the attitude in 1957.

Disabled Persons Act
I could go on and refer to the various promises which were made at the recent meeting on the general subject of social security. There has been a tremendous change -subject to change without notice. In 1956-57 hon. members opposite said "We cannot afford more than $40". They had a tremendous surplus, but they could not afford to do more than that. If there were needy people they were to look to the municipalities or to the provinces for assistance. Well, do hon. members remember that in 1957 the provinces said they were not receiving fair consideration? That was the reason for one of the promises we made, that we would increase substantially the amounts available to the provinces so they might be able to carry out their responsibility. That we have done.
I have followed with interest the various changes which have taken place in the last few weeks on the subject of pensions. I shall deal with that matter a little later, possibly, if the opportunity presents itself. Suffice it to say that the announcement made on January 11, in respect of which literature was sent all over the country, was changed as soon as it was ascertained during the debate on the speech from the throne that the amount of the increase will be $10. That changed the policy of January 11.
Then the party opposite brought in the reformed policy at the end of January. In the argument which was advanced there was again a reference to the need for a contributory system. I am not going into the subject of a contributory system now, because that has already been dealt with at length. However, if the hon. gentleman wishes to get me into that I shall be glad to enter the lists immediately.
I do want to say this. When I read and study the promises, or rather the hopes, expressed in the policy initiated by the Leader of the Opposition and those associated with him, I can only say that it is one of the most prodigious hoaxes in all history. From pretending that they were going to pay $75 they have advanced to-what are the figures? I have them here. One of them predicted $390, though they have been thinking about putting a ceiling on it so the old people will not get too much. They are going to do all this, and they are going to do it without new taxation and with a budget that is balanced. I think I shall have an opportunity to deal with that. What did Mr. Kent say?


An hon. Member:: Mr. Kent is not the leader.


John George Diefenbaker: No; he is the leader of the leader.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently that was generally agreed with.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: So is Grosart.


John George Diefenbaker: In any event, here is what he said at the conference at Queen's.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Body by Fisher.


John George Diefenbaker: May I say that "Body by Fisher" is a great deal better than "Brains by Kent"-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -if this is an example of the thinking that dominates the Liberal party today. At this conference on September 14, as reported by Mr. Harold Greer-and he certainly is not antagonistic to the Liberal party-we find this statement. He deals with the conference at Kingston. I am not going to read the heading.


An hon. Member:: Oh, read it.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall read only the beginning of it, which is as follows: "Endorsa-tion of a Political Disaster". Then it refers to the conference, deals with the various items, and states as follows:
Item:	Tom Kent, the former editor of the
Winnipeg Free Press and adviser to Mr. Pearson who now works for a Montreal corporation, presented a 66-page paper which left little to be said on how social welfare should progress in Canada, but his main proposal for financing it consisted of a 50 per cent tax on advertising expenditures.
I could read on, but I shall content myself with reading the concluding paragraphs. With a bow to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate the second last paragraph states as follows:
It was almost inevitable therefore that the Kingston conference would not be allowed to break up without a warning from the practical politicians-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate smiled with satisfaction at that distinction, Mr. Speaker. The press report continues:
-a task which was performed in a summing-up session on the final day by the master practitioner of them all, John Whitney Pickersgill.
Possibly some time when history is being written, that will be said; I might just interpolate that remark. The report concludes as follows:
What Mr. Pickersgill said was off the record, but the point of view he expressed will be discussed in a second article.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister if he would read the second article.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman wishes to put that one on the record today, he may do so. I have here only the first one.


An hon. Member:: Purposely.


John George Diefenbaker: I will not read the heading of it. The hon. gentleman knows what the heading is. Out of consideration I would not read it.
I have dealt in general with the policy of social security and the degree to which we have made increases. When I listened to the hon. member for Essex East the other evening speaking of the ills of making promises in social security that could not be carried out, and the evils of them, I wondered how he must have felt when he first heard of this latest policy enunciated by the Liberal party. As a matter of fact, I note they say that there should not really be any increases now, or any direct increases, but rather there should be an over-all plan with an increase only for the purpose of arriving at a basic level.
I have here a report of the proceedings of the final meeting of the policy committee at the national Liberal rally. Under social security it states as follows:
In the provision of pensions, we are far from being at the end of the road of achievement. The pensions presently available to many older persons are inadequate. This deficiency can be remedied either by a direct increase in monthly payments under the present old age security system or by a new contributory scheme, if this can be worked out with the approval of the provinces and on a sound actuarial basis.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: That was the declaration on April 8, 1961. But does anyone over there on the opposite side of the chamber suggest that the promise of up to $400 a month for a married couple can be brought into effect without taxation? Does anybody say that it can be brought into effect by the present formula of 3-3-3?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course not.


John George Diefenbaker: The report states that they will do it either in that way or by a new contributory scheme that will be worked out with the approval of the provinces. We believe that the entire social security system can be maintained as it is today and that over and above that plans-including blind pensions, pensions for the retarded, the crippled and all the other varieties-can be brought into being by legislation which will require the consent of the provinces.
Disabled Persons Act
When we speak of a constitutional amendment being necessary, the opposition say there is no reason for it. The opinion we received was that there is such a need. We waited. We thought we were going to bring about in Canada the repatriation of our constitution. We had hopes of doing so up until a few months ago. It is now apparent that our hopes in that regard cannot be achieved. Because of that fact we intend to bring before the house the necessary address provided we can secure the co-operation of the provinces. Today the opposition say that co-operation is not needed, yet here is what they said in the declaration of April 8:
-or by a new contributory scheme, if this can be worked out with the approval of the provinces and on a sound actuarial basis.
In other words what they recognized in April they denied in February. We stated exactly -where we stood throughout the entire period, namely that it was necessary to have a constitutional amendment. Already we have been in communication with the provinces. We have stated that we would not in any way interfere with the provinces, but that this amendment is necessary if we are to bring into effect a contributory system, not only for the aged but also providing survivor benefits and bringing into line the various private company schemes to the end that we shall build in this country a security scheme and plan that will be beneficial to all the people. While up to the present moment one or more of the provinces have indicated that they will not join in this unless we give them particulars of the plan in detail, I hope there will be a change in this view. I hope we will not be held up, and that at this session we will be able to introduce the address. Then, properly founded and accepting the premise in the declaration on April 8 last by the Liberal party that consent and co-operation by the provinces are necessary, we will be able to achieve a measure of security over and above the present system that will maintain reasonable opportunities for all in our country especially for the many today who, because of illness, infirmity and the like, are unable to take their equal place in the battle of life.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition gave us the genesis of welfare legislation, and it seems to me that the Prime Minister has, in biblical terms, given us the revelation. We are out of biblical order, but it seems to me that this is all a prelude to the exodus, and I do not intend to join in with lamentations of any kind.
Our group is ready to support this legislation, as it has been in the case of most of the measures that have been brought forward.

Disabled Persons Act


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to say to the Solicitor General-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I hear a lot of interruptions, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I might stop and they could be made a little more loudly. You are not shouting loudly enough.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Say something worth while and there will be no interruptions.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is that not a magnificent thing for the house leader to say? I want to make some remarks about the speech that has just been made, and I should like to refer to the Solicitor General who earlier this session pointed out the mistakes made by that great socialist in Newfoundland, Joey Smallwood. I should like to tell him that we have heard today the greatest inadvertent revealing of socialist policy that I have encountered. There has hardly been any legislation brought before this parliament for which we have not been able to vote.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What are you laughing about? I wonder that the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe and the rest of the members of that party who claim to be private enterprisers are not a bit suspicious about this great socialist who has just spoken. He has used the term "social justice". Under the Prime Minister this government has been committed to forms of transfer payments that are increasing the scope and range of government activity. I want to talk about the paradox that exists when we have people like the Solicitor General saying what fools we are to be supporting socialistic ideas and belittling that great socialist in Newfoundland, Joey Smallwood, when all the time he is supporting legislation such as this, the very stuff of what the C.C.F. has been campaigning for over the years.


Mr. Palleil:: Claptrap.


Douglas Mason Fisher: One of the great difficulties of the C.C.F. party has been that both the Liberal party and the Conservative party have brought to the fore these great, inadvertent socialists. There is no denying that almost every item we have had this session relating to a welfare program has had a prominent place in the program of our party.


Mr. Benidickson:: And at one time opposed by the Conservatives.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Wouldn't we be complete fools not to support them?
Mr. Pallet!: You would be fools whether you did or not.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to make the point that there is nothing really contentious in this legislation, and it should be greeted with ready acceptance. There is only one real criticism, and I am sure we are going to hear more about it from the official opposition because they have their specialists like Mr. Gordon. The only real criticism is that there has been nothing wrong with the social welfare legislation of the government except that it does not fit into the total pattern of economic growth. The main criticism of the government that we would put forward is not with regard to its measures in the field of social welfare or social justice, to use the Prime Minister's words, but rather that there has been a failure to come to grips so far as administration is concerned, a failure to produce an economy expanding fast enough to take care of some of these changes.
It seems to me that the contentiousness so far as this legislation is concerned is absolutely minimal, and instead its relationship to an election or what one might call parliamentary barter is much more apparent. The C.C.F.-New Democratic party is happy with this particular piece of legislation. It is happy with the larger circumstance into which this piece fits, and we support it very readily.


Mr. McGee:: Why do you not smile when you say that?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member asks why I do not smile. I might say the same thing about the Prime Minister. Why did he not smile a bit at the wonderful genesis that the Liberal party gave to this kind of legislation? Why are we not honest about this particular field of activity? Admit that when these measures have come to the fore time after time we have supported them just as we will support this legislation. To me the real joke is the joke upon those members of the Conservative party who feel they are private enterprisers and free enterprisers.
I should like you to look at the statement "Operation Freedom" that the chamber of commerce has put forward and which is going to constitute their great campaign for 1962, and see how that squares with the kind of socialism that your great leader is pushing and extending in his so-called social justice legislation.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South):: Mr. Chairman, we have just heard from one of the biggest blowers the New Democratic party has ever had.


Mr. Peters:: Don't make your swan song.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: The hon. member at the back over there is always babbling like a brook.


Douglas Mason Fisher: You are hitting a high level.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: In the
Conservative party today there are many people who support the workingman. They do not look down upon him or try to use him for their political advantage. In the Conservative party today we can have private enterprise with social justice and welfare, and we do not need nationalization by any socialist party.
I should like to speak a little about the legislation that is before us, dealing with disability pensions. I am not a specialist in a lot of things like the members of the New Democratic party and the Liberal party, but I know something about disability pensions. These people deserve a good break all the way down the line. The members of the official opposition tell us that they have done everything. The hon. member for Essex East brags and boasts about all the pieces of social legislation that he has put on the statute books, but when they had a surplus of well over $250 million in 1957 what did the Liberals do for the old age pensioners, disability pensioners and blind pensioners? They gave them a $6 increase.


Augustin Brassard: We instituted
them.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: The hon. gentleman from Lapointe is always interrupting. Get up on your feet and talk about this thing. Find out what is going on. When the government goes to the country the next time it will go with a clear conscience that it has tried to do its best in the social welfare field throughout Canada, and has not tried to buy votes as the official opposition are trying to do with their program of political juggling.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I had not, of course, intended to participate for a second time in this debate on disability pensions. However, you will know, Mr. Chairman, that the debate has now been opened wide by the Prime Minister. It is now possible, according to the Prime Minister, who was permitted to do so, to talk about anything in the world and under the sun. I assume we will be given the same liberty the Prime Minister was given. He spent about an hour and ten minutes on his speech, and only about three minutes of that was on the resolution before us.
During his statement he indulged, as he did the other day, in a good deal of derisive, personal attack on individuals who are not able to speak for themselves in this house. It is a characteristic tactic of the Prime Minister-


An hon. Member:: Bill of rights.
Disabled Persons Act


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, the author of the bill of rights; he attacks in this house, by name, those who cannot defend themselves in this house, just as last session his government attacked the governor of the Bank of Canada in this house without giving him a chance to defend himself. It is one way of dealing with the serious problems that confront the country at the present time. It is the method which seems to appeal most to hon. gentlemen opposite. They get a great deal of encouragement and support from their supporters as they put on this kind of performance.
I think it goes a little too far, Mr. Chairman, when the Prime Minister of this country will single out men by name, as he has done and as indeed he did today, and accuse them of being bureaucrats, of having throttled the liberty of the country during the war, of being responsible for orders in council-
Mr. Pallet!: The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Chairman-


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman can sit down.
Mr. Pallet!: The Prime Minister at no time-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. Is the parliamentary secretary rising on a point of order?


John Cameron Pallett: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Robichaud:: Make a speech on your feet for a change.


Michael Starr: Stop the closure, boys.


John Cameron Pallett: The point of order, Mr. Chairman, is this. There can be no misquotation, direct, intentional or accidental, of a speech made immediately prior in a debate. The Leader of the Opposition cannot point to any remarks made by the Prime Minister with reference to any bureaucrat, any veteran service or anything of the like, as the Leader of the Opposition has just now done. This is the point of order I raise, Mr. Chairman.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: That is closure.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I take it, Mr. Chairman, you are going to deal with this so-called point of order.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I do so very briefly. The point raised by the parliamentary secretary is one of debate, and I cannot recognize it as a point of order. I would therefore ask the Leader of the Opposition to continue.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The point the hon. gentleman was trying to make was that there could be no misquotation, misinterpretation or misstatement on my part of a statement that had been made just previously by the Prime

Disabled Persons Act
Minister. If that rule had applied also to the Prime Minister in his speech we would only have had to listen to him for about five minutes instead of for an hour and five minutes.
As I was saying before the hon. gentleman so gallantly came to the rescue of the Prime Minister, it is not part of the dignity of debate in this house to single out by name people who cannot defend themselves, misinterpret their views, misquote their remarks, and then have someone else get up in the house when an attempt is made to reply to this kind of attack and say that is out of order.


Mr. Jones:: Are you referring to the speech you made against Alvin Hamilton?


Lester Bowles Pearson: When the Prime Minister introduced this subject and introduced these men by name, and talked about them and their activities during the war, referring to them as bureaucrats, he forgot that one of them was leading his brigade across Europe at that time. He was not in Canada at all; he was abroad. Then the Prime Minister talked about the Liberal conference at Kingston, at Queen's University, and talked about a member of that conference daring to advocate a tax on advertising in a paper which he gave to the conference.
The Prime Minister keeps referring to this matter. I know it is very difficult indeed for the Prime Minister, and it is difficult for most members of the Tory party, to understand how a conference of that kind can be held at which ideas are encouraged and not throttled. In so far as this particular proposal was concerned, which I will say I did not think was a very sensible one, it seems odd to find the Prime Minister attacking it, as he has done so many times, when he is now about to introduce into this house a measure which would impose a 25 per cent tax on advertising.
However, that is not the only inconsistency in the Prime Minister's observations. This afternoon the Prime Minister showed an almost morbid, certainly a passionate preoccupation with the past; and by "past" he means the fairly immediate past, going back to 1957-58. It is quite clear, Mr. Chairman, that the Prime Minister tried to concentrate on 1958 so that he would not have to concentrate on 1962. In view of what is going to happen to the Prime Minister and his friends in 1962, I can understand his passionate determination to return to 1958.
He does not, however, go very far beyond 1958 when he talks about social security, social justice and the development of these things in our country; because if he did, if he wanted to go over the whole history of

the development of social legislation now on the statute books, he would find that practically every piece of legislation in that field was once opposed by his party. Almost all these social security measures, including children's allowances, were once opposed by them, but in the course of time they saw the error of their ways. They realized that if they continued to take that Tory approach to these progressive measures they never would leave the opposition.
Perhaps it is a compliment to the Liberal party which introduced these pieces of legislation that now, in principle at least, social security is non-partisan. All parties approve of it. In his efforts to show what he and his government have done to improve our social security structure in recent years, the Prime Minister of course dragged out, as he has done before and no doubt he will again, but I hope not for very long, and manipulated his selective statistics, his phony and incomplete returns. All the figures which he put on the record this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, have been put on before and they have been dealt with by this side.


John George Diefenbaker: Were they not correct?


Lester Bowles Pearson: They were not correct. They were incomplete and incorrect and, as the Prime Minister has opened up the subject, we on this side of the house will take all the time required to correct the figures and complete the record. It is part of that educational process which should be so rewarding to hon. gentlemen opposite.


An hon. Member:: Which ones would you eliminate?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister, among other things, referred to some of the proposals we have been making on this side, and in particular he referred to our plan for contributory old age insurance as a gigantic hoax. I recognize the authority of the Prime Minister to talk about hoaxes.


Henry Frank Jones: He has been studying Liberal hoaxes for a long time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In this field what greater hoax could there have been-


David James Walker: Than Lester Pearson.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know that hon. gentlemen opposite, when they get a little harassed, descend to the low level of personalities. That is their stock in trade.


Mr. Bourgel:: It is typical of the Minister of Public Works.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the way these hon. gentlemen are governing the country-


Henry Frank Jones: Nonsense.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -by personal abuse in this house instead of meeting the arguments advanced, and instead of telling us what they are going to do to help the country in these difficult times.
The contributory pension scheme which we have put forward has been explained in detail in this house during the last few days, but the explanations did not make much impression on the Prime Minister.


Michael Starr: Or on the country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The record will stand and it will be shown. It is very easy to show that this is a good scheme of contributory insurance and that it will do more for the pensioners in this country, in an equitable way, than anything being put forward by the government. When this proposal was put forward on January 5, 1962, it was designed by contributions to establish a minimum pension level of $75. Then the government came along afterwards. We know now why they altered the speech from the throne at the last minute. It was because of the introduction of our plan that they started juggling with their own.
They introduced their own proposal for a contributory plan and, also a $10 increase which raised the basic minimum from $55 to $65. In parentheses I may say that our proposal for contributory insurance in so far as its application to existing pensions is concerned was based on the basic minimum of $55. When that was increased by government action, or a government proposal to parliament, to the $65 level, had we been irresponsible on this side we could have added our $20 to the $65 and increased the minimum to $85.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can imagine what the laughing cavaliers on the other side-and I am using a very polite word when I say "cavaliers"-would have said had we increased the minimum from $75 to $85. We stuck to the minimum of $75, but because the original minimum was increased from $55 to $65, it meant that we would be able to increase that minimum at an earlier date than we expected. That is the course of common sense and responsibility, and to describe this plan as a hoax is an indication of the mentality of the hon. gentleman who applies that description to it.
Now I shall tell you about a proposal which, indeed, is a hoax. It is the proposal contained in the speech from the throne that this government in 1962, on the eve of an election-if they ever get around to calling it-


John George Diefenbaker: You are frightened.
Disabled Persons Act


Mr. Chevrier:: You were going to call it two months ago. What happened to you?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the hon. members opposite are not, in fact, frightened about the possibility of an election, why does the Prime Minister not call an election?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The proof that they are frightened is the fact that they do not do anything but talk about an election. In 1957-58 members of this government, which in 1962 has put forward a proposal for a contributory insurance scheme, went from coast to coast telling the people of Canada that they were going to do this as soon as they were elected. They were going to do it at once. They said they had looked into it. They said it was the thing to do, to keep the basic pension and add a contributory scheme to it. The Minister of Finance had a great deal to say about it, but did they tell the people of Canada at that time, "we will do it if we can get a constitutional amendment"? No, they did not. They started talking about a constitutional amendment only in the last two or three months. On the eve of an election, confronted with the necessity of doing something on paper at least, they put a couple of sentences into the speech from the throne saying "we will do this for the people of Canada if we can get a constitutional amendment."
I tell the Prime Minister that at any time during the last four years, on the basis of the investigations they themselves undertook, they could have drafted the legislation required for this change. They could have gone to the provinces, as they are doing now. They could have taken the matter up with them. They could have found out what could be done by the federal government and what could be done only by way of a constitutional amendment. Did they do any of these things? Not at all. They waited until 1962 and used the constitutional device to get off the hook, to get out of that dilemma which the Prime Minister is always talking about.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This bothers you a bit.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then, having put forward the proposal in the speech from the throne, they have only now got around to discussing the technical difficulties. This afternoon the Prime Minister had the effrontery to put forward as the excuse for this delay the desire of the government to bring about the amendment of the constitution inside Canada. He said if that had been accomplished they could have a constitutional amendment without going to the United Kingdom, and that was the only reason the contributory scheme had not been brought into effect. Of all the ridiculous, nonsensical excuses for inaction that is the greatest.

Disabled Persons Act
Of course, Mr. Chairman, in respect of the proposal for a procedure to amend the constitution in Canada, we all know the progress which Mr. St. Laurent made in that direction when he was prime minister. The present proposal moreover was not initiated by the present Prime Minister and his colleagues. It was initiated by the premier of Quebec, once the people of Quebec had enough sense to change their government, and, having been initiated at a provincial conference by the new premier of Quebec, my hon. friends opposite took up the challenge and decided what they would do in that direction.
The real reason why we have not a contributory pension scheme before parliament is not the desire of the government to amend the constitution in Canada. That is only an excuse for inaction.
This afternoon the Prime Minister made great play about the virtue of Tory deficits during the last four or five years and he contrasted, to the disadvantage of the previous government,, those glorious deficits with the surplus of the Liberal administration. Well, what would not the people of this country give in these days to have those surpluses, to have that Liberal administration?


Michael Starr: And the promise of $6.


Henry Frank Jones: What would the old age pensioner have?
Mr. Pallet!: Answer that question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister of Finance is so anxious to have a surplus to get out of these deficits which have now been discovered to be glorious that it was only a couple of years ago that he budgeted for a surplus. He budgeted for a surplus of $38 million and, with his normal method of miscalculation, the $38 million surplus became a $350 million deficit. But these deficits are fine things to have, says the Prime Minister; they are wonderful things to have. We have had $3 billion of them in five years, so he is an authority on them. Then he tells us that the reason for these deficits is that they are doing so much in the field of social security.


William Moore Benidickson: And the Minister of Finance did not know anything about it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will look into that question-


Mr. Drysdale:: When?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will look into it-


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Not today.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -right now. Now, Mr. Chairman-


John Andrew W. Drysdale: You are supposed to have the answers.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -I want to point out the contrast between the approach to social security development and the building up of a social security structure under Liberal administration-the approach of earlier years- and that followed by the present government since 1957.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: The six bucks approach.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I want to deal with this contrast. Over the years, stage by stage there was gradually built up in Canada a structure of social security, which was not perfect-nothing is perfect-but which got better each year. This can be done, and it was done, without any excessive burden on the economy. The hon. member for Greenwood will appreciate this; it was done without straining our financial or economic structure in any way. Why? Because it was done in the only way these things should be done, out of an expanding economy and an increasing national production.
Compare that with the experience we have had in the last five years. Compare it, if you like, with the situation which confronts us now as we deal with these measures of increased social security payments-to be made out of what; out of a $758 million, $800 million or $900 million deficit this year, the fifth or sixth in a row.


An hon. Member:: What would you have cut out?


Mr. Pigeon:: Six dollars only to increase the old age pension; that is ridiculous.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: What would you have cut out? We have not heard an answer yet.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister, of
course, asked the rhetorical question and it is being repeated by my hon. friend on the left who finds it very difficult to keep silent during these discussions. The question was, what would we have cut out in order to have eliminated-


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Yes, that is the question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -these deficits. The deficits would have been eliminated if we had continued the expansion of previous years, and we would not have had to cut anything out.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Like the six bucks in 1957.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Ten dollars in 20
years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the average increase in production in this country from 1946 to 1957 had been continued from 1957 to 1962-


Jay Waldo Monteith: 


Lester Bowles Pearson: "If"; yes, that is a good question. It was not continued under a Tory government.


An hon. Member:: It was down the drain before that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If that production had been extended, the increased production in this country during those years would have amounted to $15 billion.


An hon. Member:: Wasted years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And the revenue during those wasted years, the revenue from those $15 billion, without any alteration in the level of taxation at all, would have made it possible to meet these extra expenses without a deficit of any kind. That is the answer to the Prime Minister's question. It is not an answer they like to hear. Our national production in this country used to increase in the years before 1957, going back to the end of world war II, at an average rate of 4.6 per cent a year. Under the present government-and here is the answer to the question, why have we got a deficit-


David James Walker: The hidden report.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Here is the answer to the question. Under the present government the increase has been, on the average, 1J per cent a year; only one third what it was before 1957. The increase in production during those wasted years has not been enough to increase our real wealth as individuals. It has been smaller than the increase in population, even though this government has managed to keep population, so far as immigration is concerned, down to a minimum.
How can we avoid unemployment in that kind of stagnant situation? How can we avoid mismanagement of the nation's business, and large deficits? The Prime Minister says, "What would you cut out?" It is not what you would cut out, but what you would get going that matters and-


Michael Starr: May I ask the hon. member a
question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Sit down.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will do what the Prime Minister refuses to do; I will be glad to be asked a question.


William Moore Benidickson: months.	He	has refused	for


Michael Starr: Would	the	Leader of	the
Opposition explain what caused that situation in the economy of the United States?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, blame the Americans. Mr. Starr: I am asking a question. 26207-1-441
Disabled Persons Act


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is the tendency on the other side of the chamber, an ineradicable tendency, if anything goes wrong to blame it on the Americans and to compare the situation here with the United States.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister of Labour, when he intervenes in this debate, can answer his own question by explaining to me why it is that the United States administration is budgeting for a balanced budget this year. If the United States administration can balance its budget, why do we have to have a $750 million deficit in this country-


William Moore Benidickson: And that is the minimum.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -especially, and I commend these words to my hon. friend, as the United States is spending a great deal more on defence than we are, as much on social security as we are and, according to my hon. friends-although they are not correct- there is more unemployment in the United States than there is in Canada.


Henry Frank Jones: The rate of growth is much lower than in Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not correct, but that is the argument they use. My hon. friend the Minister of Labour will no doubt explain to the committee how, with all these factors at work in the United States, these high defence expenditures, these enormous social security expenditures, this high level of unemployment that they talk about, the United States does not have these enormous deficits we have had in this country.


William Moore Benidickson: The Minister of Labour wants to lean on Washington.


Michael Starr: If the Leader of the Opposition would answer my question, I would be glad to answer his.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think I have answered my hon. friend's question more satisfactorily than he will be able to answer mine.


Michael Starr: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If we could have kept the economy going, and we will get it going again after the next election-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You will not be here after the next election.


William Moore Benidickson: It will be soon, we hope.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -we would not have had deficit after deficit in these wasted years.


Henry Frank Jones: You did not give any more to the provinces or raise the old age pension.

Disabled Persons Act


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friends make a great virtue of all they have given to the provinces. We will put some figures on the record this evening to correct that situation as explained by the Prime Minister. My hon. friends talk about all the money they have given to the provinces and how wonderful it has been for the provinces. If this is true, why is every province in this country dissatisfied with the fiscal relations they are having at the present time with the federal government? What is wrong with it, then?


William Moore Benidickson: Including Ontario.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Especially Ontario.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The province which is perhaps most dissatisfied is the province of Ontario, which was going to get $100 million from this administration by following John. They followed John all right, and they followed him right into the sales tax.


Henry Frank Jones: What about Quebec?


Lionel Chevrier: Look at the results of the by-elections.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister, however, ignoring the decline in our economy over recent years, has asked, what we would have cut out of these expenses in order to help reduce the deficits. Well, there are certain things which could have been cut out; there are certain economies which could have been made. How many millions and millions of dollars have been added to our expenditure in this country by that ill-fated conversion loan? There is one way in which millions of dollars could have been saved. Another way was by getting interest rates down so that we would not be faced with these swollen interest payments on our national debt. Another way would be in not devoting hundreds of millions in the past four or five years to useless defense expenditure. So we could have done both; we could have kept the economy going at a better pace than it has in the last five years, thus adding to our production and to our income. At the same time we could have cut down useless expenditure arising out of things like the conversion loan.
The Prime Minister had a good deal to say about shared programs, even though it is diffcult to see how he could relate shared programs to disability allowances and disability pensions.


John George Diefenbaker: Do the provinces not contribute?


Lester Bowles Pearson: However, the right hon.
gentleman brought the question up and, therefore, I propose to deal with it, especially as

he has challenged me to answer certain questions. I am delighted to have the opportunity of doing so.


An hon. Member:: When?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Right away. I have unlimited time and I propose to take it even though it may postpone the date of the election by a few hours. That, Mr. Chairman, is a risk I shall have to take. But before we get into this matter of shared programs, it occurs to me that the Prime Minister had something to say about the level that should be reached in connection with a pension and allowances scheme. He talked about our niggardly contributions in the past. He does that every time he talks about social security. He cannot get away from the fact-


An hon. Member:: Nor can you.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I want to give the Prime Minister a little friendly advice, because he is going to need a lot of it in the weeks ahead. I advise the Prime Minister, as befits the head of the government of a great country, to look ahead, to look to the future and to put forward proposals which would help this country meet some of the problems which are facing us-to give the people of this country the feeling that at least he understands what these problems are. It is amusing, it is entertaining, it adds to the gaiety of the House of Commons when the Prime Minister makes the kind of speech he made this afternoon, but it does not do anything toward the solution of the problems which face us. Perhaps when he speaks again the right hon. gentleman will tell us something about those problems and what this government is going to do about them instead of worrying so much about the elections of 1957 and 1958. The people are more concerned about the election of 162 and they are more concerned with the policy that the government is going to put forward to meet the problems facing this country in
1962.	The right hon. gentleman will have us back in 1953 with the "horses on the payroll" before he goes much further. He nearly got there today.


John George Diefenbaker: A guilty conscience?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We do not need to worry about having a guilty conscience over the election of 1953. I propose to say something in considerable detail about programs shared with the provinces. I did not know that this subject was coming up, but then one never knows what is going to be brought into a debate when the Prime Minister gets on his feet; you have to be prepared for everything from the shipment of base metals to Cuba to programs shared with the provinces.

The Prime Minister took it upon himself to explain what the policy of this party was as enunciated in our rally on the question of shared programs, so I had better put on the record what took place so that there will be an accurate statement available to the committee showing what the policy is.


John George Diefenbaker: Which one is this?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I put on the record the policy statement of the national Liberal rally held in January, 1961 in relation to this particular problem. It comes under the resolution dealing with federal-provincial relations. Here is what was said. Incidentally, the difference between the resolutions passed by our convention and the resolutions of the meetings held by the party to which hon. members opposite belong is that they do not come up with any resolutions; they burn them after the convention is over. Having looked at some of those resolutions before they were burned I can understand the desire to shovel them into the fire. We keep our resolutions and we make them public because that is the way Liberalism operates. Here is the resolution on this particular subject:
The Liberal party believes in regular consultation with the provinces in order to ensure that priorities in the use of taxes are kept constantly in line with changing conditions and in order to ensure that the provincial governments have adequate revenues to provide their citizens an adequate standard of services and to perform their constitutional obligations. For example, several programs, like disability pensions, which had to be started on a shared-cost basis by federal and provincial governments are now established throughout Canada.
This was in January, 1961, not in Quebec a few months ago, and this was at a council of the Liberal party where all the provinces were represented and every provincial representative had a chance to speak. The resolution goes on:
In these cases a new Liberal government will be happy to leave the field entirely to the provinces, and to evolve appropriate readjustments in its taxes, so as to provide for full provincial financing. An important new area for co-operation is in the borrowing operations of municipal, provincial and federal authorities. Co-ordination could reduce the costs of borrowing to municipalities and provinces. In this and all other matters the Liberal party looks on the federal, provincial and municipal governments not as warring competitors but as effective partners in a democratic federal system.
The Depuiy Chairman: 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.
Proposals to Extend Territorial Waters


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills- of which there are none-then notices of motion for papers, followed by public bills. The house will begin with notices of motion for papers.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved:: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency, department, or branch thereof, and any other government since April 1, 1960, relating to the breadth of the territorial sea and proposals for the widening thereof.
He said: It seems a shame to interrupt a lively discussion on a domestic matter in order to turn to the more rarefied international one which is primarily the subject of the present motion-a motion which falls largely within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The motion seeks a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency thereof and any other government since April 1, as was read out from the chair, with regard to this matter. I think everyone in the house will agree, especially those who have association with the fisheries industry, that this subject is one of vital importance to the industry itself, to the country and to the future of our fisheries.
What makes it a little bit difficult to debate the matter fully is the fact that I think it is somewhat narrow. We cannot get into the subject matter of that which is stated in the correspondence. About all we have on which to base our discussion is those few statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) which are contained in Hansard and which relate to this particular set of documents, if such a set exists. Yesterday the minister, reading from a formal prepared text, I gather objected to the tabling of these documents or the acceptance of the motion. I might read his remarks. They are to be found at page 631 of Hansard and are as follows:
There is very good reason why we cannot comply with this request. It is important that nothing be said or done which might prejudice the significance of the 1960 vote at Geneva on the joint Canada-United States "six plus six" formula. Reference to any action undertaken or still in progress could do just that. Consideration of this matter has been and is being actively pursued by Canada and other like minded countries.

Proposals to Extend Territorial Waters
Similar comments were made by the minister at other times. I do not need to read them but shall merely make passing reference to them. They are contained in Hansard of January 29 of this year and July 11, 1961, during the last session, when the minister said substantially the same sort of thing. He said that the matter was being considered and actively pursued but that it would not be wise, beneficial or proper to disclose what those negotiations were all about.
I can accept the suggestion that such might be the case in this or any other matter. I can understand that it might not be considered to be judicious at one particular moment to disclose the contents of the discussions or the negotiations which are taking place between Canada and other countries. But nowhere in any of the statements of the Secretary of State for External Affairs is there any indication that any negotiations are taking place. Nowhere does he say that negotiations are taking place. Nowhere does he use the word "negotiations". He refers merely to developments, to consideration of the matter and to the pursuing of it by Canada, thus leaving the impression that negotiations are and have been taking place; but nowhere does he actually say so.
I submit that what has happened here is that no negotiations have been taking place, that no discussions between Canada and other countries have been taking place specifically at the initiation of this government, and that the real reason why the minister says he cannot disclose this information is hidden in the fact that he makes no comment whatsoever about negotiations and about whether or not they are taking place. I submit that the real reason is that there are no documents to be tabled or to be filed and that this is just another indication of the super secrecy in which the government operates when in effect it has been caught with its pants down on a vitally important issue such as this one. I submit that if we are given an indication that negotiations are taking place, if this commitment can be made,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member proceeds further with that line of argument I think I should say to him that my view of the scope of the motion is that it is limited to the desirability of the production of the documents. The motion is one calling on the government to produce the documents referred to in the motion. The question in issue is whether or not they should be produced. Production of them has been objected to. It would be relevant to debate whether or not the grounds of objection were sufficient but in my view it would not be relevant to


debate what the government should be doing about the breadth of international waters. That is another issue. The hon. member recognizes that the matter before the house is a narrow one. I hope we shall not turn this discussion into a debate as to what should be the course of the government in these international negotiations but rather that we can keep it confined to the question of whether the documents exist, if you will, or whether they should be produced.


Frank Howard: Without hesitation I accept Your Honour's suggestion. I am sure you will appreciate the fact that as this is the first debate of this type as a result of the provisional rules, it is perhaps fairly easy to wander a bit afield from the normal practice. I say that it is vitally important that the house and the country know what the government is doing. That is why these documents including telegrams, letters and so on, if there are any in existence, should be tabled, namely in order that parliament at least and the country as a whole will have knowledge of what is taking place and so that this matter may not be shrouded, as I indicated earlier, in that extreme degree of super secrecy that surrounds so many matters in which the government is or is not engaging.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You have already, Mr. Speaker, dealt with one point that I had intended to raise, namely the irrelevancy of the hon. member for Skeena in dealing with the question of whether or not negotiations are taking place. His sole request here is for the production of papers. The rules provide for this type of request or motion in order that people engaged in public affairs may have, when it is possible for them to do so, the documents which relate to those public affairs. However, in this particular instance I would draw your attention to what is being asked for. The motion, which I shall not read, is asking for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency, department, or branch thereof, and any other government since April 1, 1960, relating to the particular topic under discussion. May I indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, what was said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green), in the answer he gave on February 7, 1962, with regard to this proposal. As found at page 631 of Hansard he stated as follows:
There is very good reason why we cannot comply with this request. It is important that nothing be said or done which might prejudice the significance

of the 1960 vote at Geneva on the Joint Canada-United States "six plus six" formula. Reference to any action undertaken or still in progress could do just that.
He might have gone on to indicate what is the custom of parliament over the years with regard to the disclosing of correspondence and documents exchanged between governments. There is plenty of evidence to show that over the years it has been the custom for governments, when asked to produce that type of material, to decline to do so and certainly, if prepared to produce the material, to do so only after having received permission to that effect from the governments concerned. In this particular instance we are involved, I would imagine, with a number of governments which are interested in the problem of territorial waters or the law of the sea. To put the matter briefly, what we are dealing with is diplomatic correspondence.
On May 27, 1931, the prime minister of that day, Mr. R. B. Bennett, in discussing a motion for the production of papers similar to this one, stated, as found on page 2020 of Hansard:
As the right hon. gentleman knows, cable communications that pass between different governments are marked "confidential", and, for reasons that are good and sufficient, they cannot be brought down in this house without the consent of the other government. Whether marked "confidential" or not, the consent of the other government should first be obtained before bringing them down. Broadly, the question is one of maintenance of good faith between people who carry on a correspondence.
Then, in 1939 the prime minister of that day, Mr. Mackenzie King, was dealing with a motion for the production of papers and he indicated the difficulties with regard to putting them before the house. Again it is a question of producing diplomatic exchanges which are of a confidential nature.


Mr. Speaker:: Did the minister give the page?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am just trying to locate the page in this particular volume of Hansard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was it a brief speech?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I had it marked and I have lost the page reference but the date is January 17, 1939 and I believe it is somewhere on page 67 or 68.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the hon. gentleman say what the motion related to in that case?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes. In this instance it was with regard to the situation in Europe and the government was being asked that correspondence concerning that situation be made public. There had been a dispute in the
Proposals to Extend Territorial Waters house whether or not sufficient information had been made available. At the moment I cannot find the reference.
I was drawing the attention of the house to what is the customary practice with regard to matters of this nature. It has not been normal to press to a vote a motion of this kind which has never been conceded, so far as I can ascertain, in the course of parliamentary practice. I would refer the house to Todd's Parliamentary Government in England, volume I, page 357 and following, for a discussion of one aspect of this question of confidential communications. Todd lists several types which normally are not made available to the house.
I will revert now to what Mr. Mackenzie King said on January 17, 1939, concerning a request for the publishing of correspondence relating to a crisis in Europe which occurred in September of 1938. Mr. Mackenzie King stated, as found at the bottom of page 68 and the top of page 69:
As my hon. friend knows, correspondence between governments, particularly where it relates to the possibility of war, is necessarily highly confidential. To make it public would require the consent of the governments concerned.
I think I will put the whole passage on record because it is of some interest.
I shall be glad to communicate at once with the British government to ascertain to what extent, if at all, they think the correspondence which passed between the secretary of state for dominion affairs and the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Canada should be made public, and I shall be glad to inform my hon. friend and the house of the result of the communication.
May I add that I am sure my hon. friend and the house will realize at once that the correspondence referred to contains many references to other countries as well as to Great Britain and Canada; and I believe it is the practice where other countries are referred to in confidential correspondence not to have any such correspondence produced. I make that statement at once so that the house will understand the limitations on the government.
I suggest that is as strong a reference as can be found in the practice which I have stated, namely, that correspondence passing between governments is not normally made public. Certainly in this instance, where a number of countries are concerned, I doubt very much that the hon. member's request could be acceded to. He is asking for any documents or correspondence exchanged among several governments since April 1, 1960, which is almost a year, and even if the government made an attempt to obtain consent the length of time that would elapse in getting the necessary information, provided the governments concerned acceded to the request, might well be much too long for our purposes here.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has introduced this motion in good faith and provision is made for such a procedure in

Proposals to Extend Territorial Waters accordance with the change in the rules this year; but now that he has had an opportunity to give consideration to what is the normal practice of the House of Commons and the custom and usage of parliament I suggest to him that rather than press the matter to a vote he accept the explanation I have given as to our inability to provide him with the material that he wishes to be laid before the house and withdraw his motion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask the minister a question before he takes his seat? Could he give the house an assurance that negotiations are actively going on at the present time? I think all of us are impressed by what the minister has just said but if we had an assurance that negotiations were actively going on at the present time I am sure it would colour the views of many hon. members as to what they should do about this motion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am in no position whatever to give an answer to that question. This matter is one which falls within the realm of interest of the Secretary of State for External Aifairs (Mr. Green)-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Who should be here.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and in his absence I regret that I cannot answer the question.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this motion is of very great interest to all of us on this side of the house and of special interest to my province because the survival of our inshore fishery depends upon some action being taken to extend our territorial waters. Your Honour has pointed out that the debate on this motion should be confined to the desirability of having these documents tabled.
It seems to me that desirability hinges on whether or not negotiations are in progress. When the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) spoke to this motion on February 7, as recorded at the bottom of page 631 and the top of 632 of Hansard, he gave two reasons. One reason was we should not do anything to prejudice the significance of the 1960 vote at Geneva. Well, the 1960 vote at Geneva has no significance at all if it does not result in action. It can only have significance if further negotiations were proceeding. In his latter remarks, the minister seemed to imply that negotiations might be in progress. I am very sorry that the acting minister this afternoon was not able to give us a positive assurance that this is actually the case.
We can understand that nothing should be done to embarrass negotiations. However,


we feel that there is scope for the government to continue negotiations, particularly with those countries who in 1960 supported Canada's proposal.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should caution the hon. member again that the motion is not to the effect the government should carry on negotiations. It is not really relevant to discuss the issue of whether or not the government is carrying on negotiations or should be carrying on negotiations. The question is whether or not the government should accede to the request that these documents be made available by tabling them. The issue to be met is the objection of the government that it is not in the public interest or in accordance with the practice in international negotiations to produce documents and communications exchanged between governments. I know the hon. member's interest in the broader subject, but it really is not in issue.


Chesley William Carter: If Your Honour had borne with me for another ten seconds, I would have made it quite clear that I did not intend to pursue that line of debate, but merely to urge upon the minister the fact that there is the necessity of taking the house into his confidence as to whether or not negotiations are proceeding. Certainly, that cannot prejudice the situation. This is a matter of vital urgency to practically all my constituents and the people on both coasts of Canada.
I should like to commend the minister for the suggestion that he made with regard to this motion. My leader has authorized me to say that we would not wish to press for the tabling of the documents or for any action that might prejudice negotiations that might be in progress or might be in the process of getting started.


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


Frank Howard: I listened very attentively to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) when he spoke about past practices and the like. From all of it I could only come to one conclusion, namely that the correspondence that Canada carries on with other countries is not too much different from the correspondence that Canada carries on with the various provinces, except that we normally do not go to war with the other provinces in Canada. Perhaps national situations are sometimes more tense than relationships between the federal government and the various provinces. All I got out of the minister's reference to R. B. Bennett, and I can understand his affection there, and his reference to Mackenzie King, and I can understand him there also, is that it would have

been a very simple matter if the government wanted to disclose this correspondence, to use those words which the government uses so often in respect of correspondence between the federal authority and the various provinces, that they will table the documents subject to receiving approval from the government in question.
This is what happens when the federal government deals with the Columbia river project in British Columbia or with any other province. Subject to the approval of that government, the federal government tables the documents. I am sure this could have been done with respect to other nations.
Another point is that we requested information as to whether or not any negotiations were taking place. All we have received has been silence in that regard and the inability of the minister to make any commitment. This is understandable and appreciated. However, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) has shown an unwillingness even to indicate that negotiations are taking place. In the light of this, I think we have no other recourse but to vote on this particular resolution.


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



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. C-ll, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (application to civil service)-Mr. Howard.
Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I do not suggest that we stand order 5. I think we should go ahead with this one.

Industrial Relations


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes to proceed, he is free to do so.


Frank Howard: Not that I object, Mr. Speaker, but it is obvious that there is discrimination taking place here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member was responsible for it by his previous motion.


Frank Howard: I am not in the least responsible for it. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) is responsible for it by picking and choosing and playing favourites with his own members.


Frank Howard: the second reading of Bill No. C-ll, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (application to civil service).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide bargaining rights for civil servants. In effect, it will make the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act applicable to them with one or two exceptions, notably the right to engage in a strike. The other exception is that the report of the conciliation board will be tabled in parliament allowing sufficient length of time to enable the recommendations of the conciliation board to be taken into account by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in the preparation of his budget. Although the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) has indicated his support for this bill perhaps the application of it will have no effect this session, whether or not we have a budget.
That is the gist of it. I hope the government will accept this measure. It would, to a large degree, expedite decent consideration being given to civil servants and discontinue the practice of treating them as second class citizens which, I said, they are not. So long as this or any other government says to a group of people working under it: You have not the same rights as anyone else, that is treating them as second class citizens. Perhaps the Prime Minister, with his well known affection for the government of Saskatchewan, which he tended to decry this afternoon, would look to that government for some guidance in matters such as this, because in that province they do treat their employees with some decency.


John Cameron Pallett: According to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)-he was the one who described civil servants as second class citizens; the expression was his; it was not used by anyone on this side of the house-


Frank Howard: On a point of order; that is another distortion and a misinterpretation of my remarks.

Mr. Pallet!: The record will speak for itself. I presume it will remain unchanged. We shall see how it reads when it is printed tomorrow.
The bill which has been introduced is one in which I have some interest because under the former administration I proposed at various times that certain bargaining rights might be extended to employees in certain crown corporations, particularly in the Canadian Small Arms Corporation one of whose plants happens to be in my riding. As a result of those representations, after the administration changed this right was extended to those employees. It was generally well received by them, although some people might have considered that the idea of collective bargaining could not normally be entertained as applied to an undertaking such as this. Nevertheless, it was granted to these employees and as recently as last fall when I was able to go through that plant I found that the workmanship was of the same high calibre as before and that the morale of the employees was of the same high quality as before. As a matter of fact I would say that morale had improved. Thus, the favour which was granted seems to have worked out to the general benefit both of the people who work there and of the plant as a whole. I do not use the word "favour" in its normal sense of something being given. I use it, rather, in the sense of granting something to which the workers would be said to be entitled.
Bill No. C-ll introduced for second reading by the hon. member for Skeena follows a thorough review last year of the recommendations as to the legislation respecting civil servants in this country made by a committee of the house. Extensive representations were made before that committee, there was thorough discussion and, eventually, legislation was dealt with by the house. It seems to me we ought to consider very carefully before we add hodgepodge amendments to that legislation instead of following the normal course with regard to amendments which are introduced to measures of this nature.
A bill such as is now brought forward would affect a large group of people, people who are not second class citizens, as described by the hon. member for Skeena, but first class citizens doing commendable service for their country. That is how I, at least, consider them and that is how I believe most people in this country consider them. My experience has been that one finds a dedication to the public service at all levels of the civil service, and I am sure that has been the experience of most hon. members.
What does this bill pretend to do? It represents, really, an attempt to do indirectly something which was done directly last year

at the time the Civil Service Act was revised. It seeks to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and, thereby, to deal helter-skelter with this whole question. I think that term is more applicable than the one I used before.


Frank Howard: Six o'clock.


John Cameron Pallett: It seeks to amend Section 38 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act so that the crown would be placed in the same position as any private employer in the country. Over the years we have tended to regard the crown as a more benevolent employer than most-one which sought in its dealings with its employees to consider many factors which are not usually considered by those in the private field. Indeed, the government has been described by many, as a model employer.
I see it is six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: If the house will permit me, I shall not leave the chair for a moment.
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.



DISABLED PERSONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee on the following resolution-Mr. Monteith (Perth)-Mr. Martineau in the chair.
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Disabled Persons Act to increase to sixty five dollars per month the maximum amount of allowance 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 allowance, 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.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Lester Bowles Pearson: This afternoon, Mr. Chairman, at five o'clock I had begun to deal with the question of shared programs which was raised at some length by the Prime Minister in his contribution to the debate this afternoon. During his speech he said that he would give me an opportunity, of which I wish to take advantage, of saying whether our shared program policy as a party is that which was enunciated in the resolution at the Liberal rally of January, 1961, or as stated by me in a speech in Quebec a few months ago.
Disabled Persons Act
As I recall his words, the Prime Minister said that conditional grants, according to the Leader of the Opposition-he was referring to me-are to be taken from the provinces, that such was our policy, that shared programs are no longer to exist and that they are, in the words of the Prime Minister, to be allowed to phase out. He asked what would happen to the individual in the provinces in which those programs were to be allowed to phase out if our alleged policy was put into effect. Then he concluded that part of his remarks by asking or begging me to reply and say whether I was opposed to shared programs.


Jay Waldo Monteith: He asked you if you wanted to reduce them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope to answer that question and to do so in some detail in order to make the record clear so that it will not be possible for the Prime Minister or other members of the government to misrepresent or distort that record. I will say at once that this party is not against shared programs. It is not against co-operation with the provinces in such shared programs. If and when it feels it desirable to withdraw federal financial participation in such shared programs, that is something that would be done with the consent and the approval of the government concerned; and if it were done by agreement of that kind, full compensation would be made to the province in question so that the program could be carried on by the province.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: What does that mean?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I therefore ask the minister or any member of the government whether he objects to that shared program policy.


Richard Albert Bell: Nobody can understand what the Leader of the Opposition is saying.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It would be quite impossible to explain it to the satisfaction of my hon. friend. I am aware of that fact. In order to make the record clear I am going to repeat what I said on this matter first in Winnipeg, then in Quebec and then in Guelph, Ontario, in order to remove this stupid and baseless charge made by the Minister of Justice, that I have said in one part of the country something which I am afraid to repeat in another part of the country. Let me say that I will now repeat the three speeches. Then we shall see how much there is to the charge made by the Minister of Justice.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know the minister is obliged to intervene in this debate because, after all, he is in charge of the debate.

Disabled Persons Act
Here is what I said in Winnipeg. I had been talking about equalization and had been complaining about the equalization policy of this government which I thought to be unfair to the poorer provinces. I was making a plea for equalization on the level of the richest province in respect of the revenues in question. Then I went on to say this:
"Equalization" however, is not everything. There is much more to be done in co-operative arrangements between the provincial and national governments to foster Canada's progress and development. Some federal-provincial agreements to this end have in the past been delayed because some provinces did not regard the federal proposal as suitable for their particular needs. Such joint measures, however, should not, because of this, be held up unnecessarily in the provinces where they are desired and required.
I ask hon. gentlemen if they object to that statement. I continued:
I suggest therefore, that we have to look for ways of bringing more flexibility into some of our joint programs.
I ask hon. gentlemen if they object to that statement. I continued:
It may be that we should develop arrangements to permit contracting-out by a province that does not consider a federal scheme appropriate to its circumstances.
I ask hon. gentlemen if they object to that statement. I continued:
If a province did not want to take part, it might be compensated so that it would not be at a disadvantage financially, vis-S-vis the rest of the country. I would suggest, in this connection, that consultation and co-operation be the guiding principle in all federal-provincial arrangements which, by their very nature, demand periodic review.
I ask hon. gentlemen if they object to any part of that particular statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where did the hon. gentleman say that speech was made?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said that in Winnipeg before I spoke in Quebec. Then to explain what I meant-


Jay Waldo Monteith: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether that is the exact text that was issued?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is from the exact text which was issued and which no doubt is in the possession of my hon. friend. If he wishes to read from it, he will be able to check for himself. I am not in the habit of issuing edited texts after I speak-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Unlike the Prime Minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -let alone three separate versions of what I have said.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about broken tapes?


Jay Waldo Monteith: You issue what you should have said, not what you did say.
[Mr. Pearson.)


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now, Mr. Chairman, this is what I said in Quebec:
This principle of equalization could become an important instrument in decentralization. As a matter of fact, we believe that the federal government should withdraw from the field of joint programs which are of a permanent character once these programs are well established across the country.
This, I thought, was a sensible statement of government policy with respect to joint programs of a permanent character once they are well established across the country, and it was understood and I made it clear in my speech in Guelph that this would only be done, of course, after consultation with and approval of the provincial government concerned. Then I went on to say in Quebec:
This proposal applies more particularly in the field of social security. In putting an end to its financial contribution to such programs the federal government should compensate the provinces by giving them more leeway in the field of direct taxation so that, with equalization added, their costs will not increase. Already several of these joint programs could thus be abandoned almost immediately.
If, of course, the province so desired.
As to others which are not as yet sufficiently established, they should be reviewed in this light every five years, when fiscal arrangements are negotiated.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Which ones should be abandoned?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does my hon. friend object to that principle in respect of such programs?


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the hon. gentleman say which ones should be abandoned?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am stating a principle and I ask my hon. friend, if he objects to that principle, to get on his feet and say so.


Thomas Miller Bell: Would the hon. gentleman tell me which ones should now be abandoned?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then I went on to say-


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. gentleman will not answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and I would commend these words to the Prime Minister if he were in his place-I said:
Such a system-
This is from the text and it is directly contrary to what the Prime Minister alleged I said.
-would not mean that the Liberal party would refrain from bringing forward new joint programs in the future. This means, however, that from now on joint programs which require a permanent and fairly regular expenditure would not last any more than five years before being turned over entirely to the provinces.

That means, of course, if a province so desired that to be done. Then I went on to say in Quebec:
As I said last week in Winnipeg, these programs must be allowed more flexibility. Their application must not be delayed indefinitely because of lack of agreement on the part of all the provinces. On the other hand, no one province not wishing to participate would lose financially because of agreements entered into by the other provinces. In such cases we would propose a special arrangement which would allow a province to stay out of federal programs without suffering financial discrimination.
I ask any member of the government to get up and say that he objects to that principle.


Thomas Miller Bell: I ask the hon. gentleman to name one particular program to which that principle would apply.


An hon. Member:: Go back to school.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I went on to say this-


Richard Albert Bell: Is the hon. gentleman going to answer or not?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman is at least a junior member of a ministry which knows all about these programs. He is in the best position to decide what the answer should be to that particular question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I ask him a question and he insists on bringing forward these matters of detail. I ask him to get up on his feet and say that he objects to the application of this principle to joint programs. I defy him to do so. He knows he cannot do so.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I wonder if I might ask the Leader of the Opposition a question. We happen to be discussing disability allowances at the moment and I wonder whether he would wish to abandon that program.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We happen to be discussing disability allowances but we were not discussing disability allowances when the Prime Minister spoke this afternoon.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Would you abandon it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In respect of disability allowances, if that were a joint program which had been in effect over the years and if a particular province came to the federal government and said, "We would like to take the responsibility for disability allowances in our province and administer this program'', I ask the minister, would he refuse to allow that province to do so?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Answer my question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will answer it. Of course I will answer the minister's question. If a province came to a government of which I
Disabled Persons Act
was the head and asked to take the responsibility for administering a disability allowance program I would say, "Of course, go ahead and do it and we will assure that you do not lose financially by it". So I ask the minister when he replies, and I have no doubt he will be replying, to tell me whether he objects to that position and what position he would take in those circumstances. Then I went on to say in Quebec:
These measures as a whole would serve to increase the flexibility of our federalism while at the same time assuring its stability and its dynamism. One result would be to achieve legislative and fiscal decentralization while avoiding any possibility of discrimination against any one province.
That is the principle in regard to these matters on which we stand. Lest it might be said that I would talk like that in Quebec and not in Ontario, this is what I had to say in Guelph a week later.


Jay Waldo Monteith: You have been around quite a bit.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I quote from the text of my statement there:
Liberal policy has been and is now that there should be genuine equalization.
I was talking not about the kind of equalization that the government is introducing but genuine equalization.
That is, the revenues from standard provincial rates of profits tax, income tax and succession duties should be brought up to the same level, per head of population, for all provinces. That is the only way we can have a common standard of provincial services for all Canadians. It is the only way we can have equality of opportunity for people across this country. It is the only fair way to operate our federal-provincial system.
I said this:
I'm proud, all Liberals are proud, to advocate this policy everywhere in Canada.


John Cameron Pallett: Pride goeth before a fall.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I continue:
I believe that Canadians in Ontario, just as much as Canadians in Nova Scotia or Saskatchewan, recognize it as a national policy, as the right policy for national unity, as good Canadianism.
There's another aspect to this policy. In addition to equalization payments, the inadequate revenues of some of the provinces are also offset by the federal government paying a substantial part of the cost of some joint programs undertaken by federal and provincial authorities.
In the case of disability allowances, about which we are talking tonight, the federal government, of course, pays 50 per cent of the cost and in the case of blindness allowances 75 per cent. I added this:
This is a necessary procedure in many cases. The Liberal party has no intention of abandoning it. On the contrary, we will go on using it to get necessary new projects going. But, if all the old projects also continue, if the procedure grows indefinitely, it can have some bad consequences.

Disabled Persons Act
It can take from the provinces responsibilities which the bigger ones at least, Ontario and Quebec, would sooner administer for themselves. And, if Ontario or Quebec does not want to take part, the effect may be that their people are paying federal taxes for a service they don't receive
So it is Liberal policy, decided at our national rally last January, that the federal government will, after a period of time, consider withdrawing from joint programs of a permanent type, when the services concerned have become well established and the provinces wish to carry them on. We would reduce federal taxes by the amount thus saved, leaving more to the provinces.


Thomas Miller Bell: Are there any such now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Ask the provinces.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the minister, when he rises to wind up this particular debate, will tell me that he objects to that particular policy and the principles on which that policy is based, I would be very interested indeed to hear him say so. This afternoon, Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister made some very interesting and very inaccurate statements.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Not inaccurate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister this afternoon made some very inaccurate statements-*


An hon. Member:: Interesting, you say?


Lester Bowles Pearson: -interesting, particularly in their inaccuracy. The Prime Minister claimed as I recall, and I do not think I am wrong in my recall, that under a Conservative government old age security payments-he made a great play of this-had increased by 60 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend says "right". Let us see how right he was. He did not say when he made that statement that he had included the $6 pension increase granted by the former Liberal administration.


Jay Waldo Monteith: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, may I say the Prime Minister did mention this afternoon that the $6-


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no privilege.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The Prime Minister mentioned the $6.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no privilege, sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Order; sit down.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The Leader of the Opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister also did not say-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, he did say.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister is interjecting to say that he did say something before I say what he did not say.


Jay Waldo Monteith: He did mention the


Lester Bowles Pearson: Loyalty could not go much farther than that. The Prime Minister did not say that there were 125,000 more pensioners in 1962 than in 1956. The truth is, Mr. Chairman, that the present government has increased old age pensions not by 60 per cent but by 30 per cent. They have also raised taxes to finance old age pensions by 33 per cent.


Chesley William Carter: That is right; you cannot deny that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This opens up a story on that particular point.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister also said this afternoon, and I think I am quoting him correctly, that all of the changes that he had been speaking about had been made, and these extra benefits had been secured, with no increase in income taxes.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend says "right". Well, we will go back to the figures of the Minister of Finance who should be an authority on these matters.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He is the other side of the government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: According to the estimate given by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech of 1959, which can be found on page 2425 of Hansard, the combined tax increases made in that one year by the present government were, on an annual basis, $129 million for personal income taxes and $84 million for corporation income taxes.


Thomas Miller Bell: What about the earlier
reductions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The total increase in income taxation for that one year alone was $213 million.


Thomas Miller Bell: What about the earlier reductions?


William Moore Benidickson: Hear, hear; new government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yet the Prime Minister and his friends opposite have the effrontery to get up in this house and say that these benefits were given without any increase in taxation.


Thomas Miller Bell: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why of course; we always permit questions.


Richard Albert Bell: Is the hon. gentleman not aware of the fact that 75 per cent of the income tax payers of Canada pay less income tax today than they did?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Wait until I read what the Prime Minister said. He said that all of the changes that he had been speaking about and these extra benefits had been secured without any increase in taxes. I know that to my hon. friends who deal in billions of deficits, $213 million of an increase in one year is peanuts, but still-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: "Peanuts", what do you mean? Do you think your party is peanuts?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, that opens up a new and interesting sort of avenue of exploration which I will not go into at the moment because I do not want to take an undue amount of time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Leave it to the Minister of Finance.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When the Prime Minister was dealing with the adequacy of what had been done by the Liberal administration compared to the adequacy of what was being done by his government in respect of social security payments, he must expect to be judged by the test which he established himself in regard to adequacy. This test was established once and for all-he cannot escape this test- when he said in an election campaign on April 25, 1957, a Conservative government would set the payments high enough to meet the needs.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is my hon. friend trying to tell me that $65 is enough to meet the needs?


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is a lot better than $46.


Richard Albert Bell: It is $19 a month more than you were paying.
Mr. Pallet!: Does the Leader of the Opposition disagree with that principle?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course, I disagree. What is the need of a disabled man? What is the need of a blind man? Is it $55 or $65?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is not $46.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The pension plan we on this side are putting forward is a basic pension plan for old age, for disability, for blindness, on which there will be raised a contributory plan which will add to that basic plan. It is never enough to meet the needs of all people. We have this principle exemplified very well in the resolution before us. We are talking
Disabled Persons Act
about disability allowances which are being paid out of taxation on a basis to be established, but on which there could also be established a disability pension out of a contributory scheme by which a man who suffers disability and who qualifies under that scheme will be able to add to his basic pension.
This is the philosophy we adopt in respect of old age pensions, too. This, Mr. Chairman, is the best way to do it and that is the path we on this side propose to follow. We accept a basic minimum, and on that basic minimum we will add a pension out of contributions to be made by those who benefit from the pension fund.
We have been committed to that principle, Mr. Chairman, since January, 1958, and on the eve of an election, as is our duty, we submit to the people of this country the details, not all the details but the details, as to how that commitment can be carried out. The people of this country will know what we propose to do. What will they know about the government's contributory scheme? All they will know is that in some way at some time this government will ask the provinces for a constitutional amendment to make possible a contributory pension scheme to be added on at some date.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We have asked; not "at some time".


Lester Bowles Pearson: Hon. gentlemen have had four years, nearly five years to approach the provinces in respect of this matter and they do it in January, 1962. In doing it, Mr. Chairman, they accept, apparently without question, that the federal government can do nothing in regard to a contributory pension scheme without a constitutional amendment. We do not accept that. We know quite well that so far as survivors benefits are concerned and disability allowances as well, there will have to be consultations and approval of a constitutional change.


Jay Waldo Monteith: You admit it now. The hon. member for Essex East would not admit it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend is getting a little heated.


Jay Waldo Monteith: My hon. friend from Essex East would not admit it.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister has been asleep for four years.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You have been asleep.


Lionel Chevrier: Pipe down, Mortimer Snerd.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. As the hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor it would be helpful if hon. members would refrain from making interjections from their seats.

Disabled Persons Act


Léon Balcer: The hon. member for Laurier is guilty.


Mr. Denis:: The minister is doing it now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your effort to give me a quiet floor. Now that the hon. minister is writing away perhaps I can proceed.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am just writing a letter to my wife.


An hon. Member:: What about the United Nations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In respect of the contributory pension plan it is now obvious that survivors' benefits and disability pensions-the portability of a scheme-has to be brought into effect in co-operation with the provinces. That requires provincial consent and perhaps a constitutional amendment, but the basic contributory pensions can be brought into effect without any kind of constitutional amendment because the constitutional amendment to cover the basic provisions of the pension fund was secured a good many years ago.


An hon. Member:: Nuts.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope my hon. friend's eloquent interruption gets into Hansard. The government have been seeking for some way to delay such a scheme. They have delayed it for years in spite of their statements in 1957-58 that if they could get a constitutional amendment they would do it. Now they say they cannot do it without a constitutional amendment, but that is wrong. It is a defeatist attitude. That is the attitude they should have taken five years ago, and so not have deceived the people of Canada.
Now that we are awaiting an election we have an obligation to tell the people how we would do it. We have done that. We ask the government to do the same.


Henry Frank Jones: The Leader of the Opposition has the obligation whether there is an election or not.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That was a silly, juvenile interjection.


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: After listening to the most eloquent address by the Leader of the Opposition I am reminded of my own Scottish grandmother who was addicted to the Scriptures. After one particularly childish prank, at the age of about seven years, she instructed me to look up Proverbs, chapter 17, verse 28. I was going to save this particular verse for the hon. member for Essex East. I was going to commend it to him on one of those occasions which we have come to regard as typical of his contributions, but I think in all charity and kindness I
[The Chairman.]
should commend it to the Leader of the Opposition for his edification and instruction tonight as it seems singularly appropriate. Verse 28 says this:
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
I have only one more comment to make about the speech of the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the great increase in productivity during the post-war years, the great years of Liberal boom. Of course he attributes this to the acumen and abilities of the men who guided the destinies of our nation at that time. However, I contend it was due to certain fortunate peculiarities. In the first instance it was due to the accumulation of purchasing power over the four years of war during which the people could not spend any money. It was also due to the accumulated veterans grants which were finally spent all at once. It was also due to the fact that the economies of Western Europe and Japan were devastated, and we were in the fortunate position for some years after the war of being able to sell whatever we produced at whatever prices we asked. Then finally, just when the bloom was coming off the rose, along came the Korean war with the tremendous United States defence spending which it engendered.
In addition to all that, there was the great influx of foreign capital, particularly United States capital, largely to take advantage of British commonwealth preferences, and to such an extent that 51 per cent of our secondary industry is owned outside the country. That was the cause and origin of the tremendous post-war boom. It was due to these fortuitous circumstances over which no one here had control.
My remarks on this particular topic tonight will be brief and extemporaneous.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The better for both.


Grant Campbell: I commend the minister and the government for this legislation and the increase which it provides. It is not as large as I would like to see. Personally I would have raised the level to $75, but much more would I prefer to see the age for eligibility for normal pensions being lowered to 60 years. I shall give my reasons in a moment, but just now I wish to say the minister and the government have given every evidence of their solicitude for social welfare. This government has given two substantial increases in four years, increases unprecedented in the history of our country.
If there could have been any larger grants made at this time, consistent with the government's duties and responsibilities in other

directions, there is no doubt they would have been given, and there is no doubt that as soon as the government is in a position to do so it will provide more adequately for those in need. The government's actions have been completely consistent with the policies and traditions of this party, and I am saying this for the benefit of the hon. member for Port Arthur.
It is an historical fact that it was the Tory party in England which relieved excesses in the early days of the industrial revolution, thus preventing the kind of revolution which occurred in France. This was the Tory democracy of Disraeli and the great Tory philanthropist Lord Shaftesbury. This was a continuous stream in the history of the Tory party in the old country, where our origins are, and I am glad to see the measure of consistency that is evident in that respect in this house tonight. It is also consistent with the social legislation brought in by our predecessors, the Bennett government. I am speaking about such things as legalizing trade unions, the eight-hour day, the 48-hour week, the fair trade practices legislation, national minimum wage legislation and unemployment insurance. It is also consistent with the great public utility ventures, public service ventures established to serve the state of Canada, introduced by this party in former times. I am referring to such organizations as the C.B.C., the C.N.R. and the Bank of Canada which were all established by Tory governments.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are you boasting about the Bank of Canada?


Grant Campbell: To listen to some of the hon. members speaking for the opposition one would think that these great organizations which have played such a constructive role in the development of our country were their own private preserve. They merely regard it as their private preserve in their endeavours to pervert it to their own use, but only in that sense could it be regarded as being their private concern.
I think this is also consistent with the attitude the official opposition and their supporters are taking within and outside this house toward this very beneficial, useful and necessary social legislation. I have heard consistent criticism from some of my Liberal friends in Montreal, at home and elsewhere, about this. They have been continually carping critics of this type of legislation. That, too, is consistent with the policy of that party, especially in recent years. All the great vested financial and moneyed interests have become enamoured of the late minister of
Disabled Persons Act
trade and commerce; they have become disciples of his and are still supporting his group.
The policies of that particular party are naturally conditioned by those vested interests which are supporting them and this tendency will only be exaggerated and amplified by some of the newer and foremost candidates who are coming forward. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned some of their names earlier. No doubt there are other august personages of a similar calibre in the wings who will more and more dictate the policies of that party.
May I, in criticism of those policies and to illustrate how obsolete they are, how inconsistent they are with the needs and the demands of this urbanized, industrialized twentieth century, cite some criticism from a most distinguished and able journalist, one who is by no means hostile to the official opposition.


An hon. Member:: What is his name?


Grant Campbell: His name is Mr. Blair Fraser, one of the most respected journalists in this country. I will read from an editorial of his in Maclean's magazine of February 10, 1962. I wish to quote a couple of paragraphs which I think are very relevant to this matter.


Mr. Habel:: The date of his birth?


Grant Campbell: He says:
Businessmen should resist the temptation, in an election year, to fire rhetorical shotguns at government spending on welfare. They have no effect on platforms or policy . .. but they do have an effect on the status, repute and political influence of the business community. If free enterprise is to survive the twentieth century, its advocates had better stop using the language of the nineteenth.
He goes on:
Take old age pensions, which all political parties say they plan to increase. The care of retired people, rich or poor, is a charge on the current economy. They do not work, they do consume, so they are supported by those who are still working. The purpose of a universal, tax-supported pension is to make sure that the benefits are fairly distributed -that everyone, not merely a well-to-do minority, shall live out his retirement in decent independence, and not be forced to rely on relatives or on public charity.
Then he goes on to deal with hospital insurance and other things. But this is the important point; this is the point about which most exception has been taken regarding this very necessary and beneficial legislation. The writer of this article is referring to the point about which exception is usually taken, that it is going to cost too much, it is going to


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Grant Campbell: He continues:
Deficit financing is not inevitably disastrous, and this is a fact of recent experience that every voter knows. Oratory to the opposite effect is therefore unconvincing.
I contend that this type of legislation, which is so typical of the present government, can be justified, apart altogether from its necessity, apart altogether from humanitarian grounds, on a sound economic basis, because there is nothing that does more to help business and to improve business conditions than increasing the consumer purchasing stream. These elderly people, immediately their pensions are increased, need to spend it on necessities, on consumer goods. They dash down to the corner grocer and buy something more to eat. This money is always kept going around; it increases the consumer purchasing stream and keeps the economy going. On that basis alone it can be more than justified.
One can get into very intangible areas when making projections into the future; but I believe that in future it is inevitable that we have more leisure, that working hours be shorter. We are now approaching what might be called a bureaucratic revolution. Originally we had an industrial revolution, but now, with automation, mechanization and what have you, we are getting into a bureaucratic revolution. Go down to Montreal or Toronto or any of the big cities on this continent and you will see these great, new skyscraper office buildings; these human filing cabinets, if you want to call them that. This is the type of thing that indicates the trend or the direction in which society is going inevitably in this day and age of the twentieth century. Because of this it seems inevitable that labour will become less and jobs, in a physical sense, will become fewer and fewer.
This is a long term economic trend independent of any government or anything that governments can do. Therefore it seems the part of wisdom to provide that if there is to be an almost continual shortage of employment, those in the prime of life, those who are supporting families should have first priority. This may involve lowering the age qualification for these pensions to 60 so that older

people can be prepared and will have the knowledge that they will be able to live the latter part of their lives in security, and they can plan and act accordingly. This, of course, has no immediate relevance but to my mind this is the trend of the future, and this type of legislation is consistent with this trend.
Therefore I once again heartily endorse this legislation which is in such striking contrast to the chaotic, jumping back and forth program that was brought in by the official opposition and then scrapped when they heard that a more practical one was proposed by the government. I contend that this legislation is the best that is available at this time, consistent with the other responsibilities of this government, and 1 very heartily endorse it.


Augustin Brassard: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Grant Campbell: Yes, surely.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He would love it.


Augustin Brassard: Was it not a
Progressive Conservative member of parliament who was named by the Speaker on July 29, 1944 at a time when he was objecting to the family allowances legislation?


Grant Campbell: I did not understand the question. Would the hon. member mind repeating it?


An hon. Member:: Is your name Cour-temanche?


Augustin Brassard: Is the hon. member aware that it was a Progressive Conservative member of parliament who was named by the Speaker on July 29, 1944 when he was objecting to the family allowances legislation?


Grant Campbell: I was not in the
family allowances legislation. That was in Ontario, was it not?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Stormont. I may say that his Gallic fervour, his quotations from scriptures, his physical animation and his pretentious diction gave an appearance of substance to what was, in effect, pure wind.


Grant Campbell: Can the hon. member inform us who is responsible for the impure wind which is emanating from that quarter of the house?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall the resolution carry?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I see the hon. member for Greenwood is very anxious to commence. He usually waits until I have finished paining him and then tries to knock my ninepins over.

I say in all seriousness that the members of this group should be excused if they face this debate with a certain smugness and selfsatisfaction, because their record in this house as far as social security is concerned is unblemished, untarnished and without reproach. Today, when the Prime Minister was speaking, in order to bolster his arguments and sharpen his criticism of the official opposition the only reference he made to this group was to quote from statements we have made on the subject of old age security in years past. I think I have proved that point.
However, we are anxious for this resolution to go through. I am simply rising to express our support for the principle of this resolution which provides for a welcome $10 increase in pensions paid to disabled persons in addition to an increase in the permissible income, something which his group has urged for a number of years.
I do not wish to repeat the brief comments I made during the debate on the old age security measure except to say that in general what I said on that occasion applies to this resolution. We continue to protest this piecemeal approach to the question of old age security and trust this will be the last time when we shall have to deal with legislation of the present type in this fashion.
Before resuming my seat I should like to bring to the attention of the committee something which has been brought to my notice on numerous occasions with respect to the administration of the Disabled Persons Act. I know the administration of the act is carried out in co-operation with the provincial governments, but I think it is safe to say, judging from the letters and resolutions I have received from various organizations, that the regulations with respect to disability have been somewhat too restrictive. As I say, I am not certain whether that is the responsibilty of the federal government or not. I would suggest, however, that consideration be given to introducing a wider definition of disability. I have met several people who have been denied a disability pension though they have obviously been unable to earn a living, unless it is possible to earn a living from a wheelchair handing out tickets, and so on-I know that there is restricted employment of this type, but these men are usually of an age where they would find over-much competition for such jobs when they do exist. To indicate that some thought has been given to this matter, I want to quote from a letter which I received some time ago from the president of the national old age pensioners federation, Saskatoon. Among the suggestions put forward is the following:
Disabled Persons Act
That the government be requested to amend the regulation under the Disabled Persons Allowance Act to provide for payment of allowances to persons judged by a medical referee board to be physically incapable of gainful employment.
I think that does provide the basis for an objective approach to a person's physical condition and capacity for employment. That is all I wish to say at this time, because we in this group are anxious to see this legislation go through. I think that in fairness to the members of this group it must be recognized that our remarks have been constructive, restrained and to the point on all occasions.


Mr. Macdonnell:: I was in doubt as to whether I should speak at all on this resolution, but as one with even 25 per cent Scottish blood I feel I should say something about the unwarranted attack made by a Sassenach from West Kootenay on a gentleman with the undoubted Scottish background of the hon. member for Stormont.
Having said that, I must confess I have a grievance against the hon. member for Stormont because he made most of my speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he not think that in his introduction he is verging on racial discrimination?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is no racial discrimination among the higher races.
I want to add one or two points to what the hon. member for Stormont said because I was really amazed beyond words to hear the Leader of the Opposition tell us this afternoon that if the government of which he was a member had continued in power there would have been no deficits. Indeed, I can only explain those words by saying to myself that the hon. gentleman had surrounded himself with a cloud of economic experts. I think that is most dangerous. Academic economic experts are dangerous enough, but when you have added to them the businessmen who have turned experts and the journalists who have turned experts I think you have a mixture which can produce strange things. I suggest it did produce a very strange statement this afternoon, because if I understood the Leader of the Opposition correctly he did say in plain English that if they had stayed in power he believed that they would have been able to avoid deficits.
The economic story of the last four years, largely indicated by the hon. member for Stormont, seems to me to be so clear. There were the years after the war when you had pent-up purchasing power; you had a destroyed Europe coming to purchase supplies to rebuild itself, fortified by $14 billion under the Marshall plan; to that must be added our

Disabled Persons Act
own advance of $1,250 million to Britain, a sum which was spent here. There were all kinds of factors, including the Korean situation. All these things must be considered in the light of the situation which emerged just about the time of the change of government- the slowing down of European demand, the greatly increased productive efficiency of Europe which had been given practically a brand new send off by the Marshall plan, and the rapid increase in automation in combination with a slowing down of the economy in the United States. These things seem to me to present a clear picture and I was, therefore, distressed to hear the Leader of the Opposition say what he did. The hon. gentleman is a very old and valued friend and up to the present time I have had the feeling that if the Canadian electorate did suddenly go mad at the time of the election and vote for the return of the Liberal government it would not, at any rate, be so bad because we would have people we knew. But this afternoon, when I heard the hon. gentleman make the statement which he made with apparent confidence, I was really shaken and I recommend him to have another look at the economists of various types that he has gathered around him.
Before I sit down I want to make one comment on the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Port Arthur. I am sorry to see that his opinions are more or less shared by my good friend from Kootenay West.
The idea seemed to be that socialists have a monopoly on social security. I was not able to take any other meaning out of it. The hon. member for Port Arthur seemed to be very clear. He spoke out "loud and clear". Our friend the hon. member for Kootenay West was very much the same. I wonder where they have been living. How do they think these advanced measures of social security we now enjoy have arisen? Where did they come from if not from the two old parties? I really felt distressed that people living in this year of grace-if it is a year of grace- 1962, should allow themselves to get to their feet and make that statement seriously.
I wish to refer to a short quotation from the Conservative convention of 1942. The hon. member for Port Arthur who, I am sorry to observe, is not in the house, is a man who travels, who reads and who very recently has been in England. He must know that for the last ten years or more in England social security ad-lib has been provided by the Tory party. I think they were under the influence of those great Tories Sir William Beveridge and Keynes whom I think nobody could describe as anything but people of the left.

Before I take my seat and as an indication that this party to which I have the honour to belong has not learned about social security yesterday or the day before from our friends opposite, but have been seriously inclined to it for many years, I read the following from the proceedings of the Conservative convention of 1942 at Winnipeg, just 20 years ago:
We believe that the reconstruction of post-war Canadian economy must be based upon the following principle set forth in Section 5 of the Atlantic Charter:
"Fifth: They desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing for all, improved labour standards, economic advancement and social security."
A social security program, the adoption of which we advocate, would include in a unified system:
(a)	Unemployment insurance;
(b)	Adequate payments for the maintenance of unemployables;
(c)	Retirement insurance;
(d)	The payment of increased old age pensions, at a reduced age, until such time as the retirement insurance scheme becomes fully operative;
(e)	Adequate pensions for the blind;
(f)	Adequate mothers and widows allowances.
Whatever criticisms or accusations can be brought against that program, I do not think anyone will argue that it was brought forward by people who were not deeply aware of the necessity for social services.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am just wondering whether the proceedings of the committee perhaps might be facilitated if I allowed two minutes' silence for the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm so that he could say "Under two flags" about ten times and "Six dollars" about 12 times instead of interrupting my speech with those foolish interjections.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Oh, no; your statements are foolish.


John Whitney Pickersgill: However, as I have no hope whatsoever that I would induce a degree of temperance in the hon. gentleman, even if I allowed him two minutes, I think perhaps I should proceed at once.


Mr. More:: Mr. Chairman, I am just a backbencher but I have been here for the past three years. I tackled the hon. gentleman once previously about this matter. I think it is only right to tackle him again when he refers to interruptions. If anyone wishes to check Hansard for the last four years he will find that, during one speech by the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate holds the record for interruptions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Out of deference for the hon. member for Regina City who is one of the most amiable members of the house, I may say that the record to which he refers

was exceeded the other evening when I spoke. One of the newspapermen telephoned me the next day and he said, "Do you know that in 30 minutes you were interrupted 54 times?" That is about twice a minute.


An hon. Member:: By your own members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think this discussion is very relevant, even in relation to what other members have said, to the debate that is before us.
I should now like to begin, although not in the way in which I intended to begin, by a reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Greenwood for whom I have as much respect as I have for any other hon. gentleman on the other side of the chamber, and a great deal more than I have for most hon. gentlemen over there. The hon. gentleman did something which I am sure was totally inadvertent. He misquoted my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would not have been so immodest as to claim that if a Liberal government had been in office there would necessarily have been the same degree of growth as there was when a Liberal government was in office. What the Leader of the Opposition said was that if the rate of growth that took place between 1946 and 1957 had continued there would have been no deficits in the last four years. He did not say anything about who was in office; he said that if the rate of growth had continued, there would have been no deficits in these last four years. That is a very different thing. But as my right hon. friend Mr. St. Laurent used to say so often, it may just be a coincidence that in the 20th century when we have had Liberal governments there has been growth, but when we have had Tory governments there has been stagnation; but if it is coincidence, would you not prefer to have that kind of coincidence? When the time comes to have another coincidence, I think the people of Canada may remember Mr. St. Laurent's words.


Mr. Johnson:: Remember what you did to St. Laurent in the election.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister, who introduced this totally irrelevant debate in which we have had a certain amount of satisfaction in taking part, said that the program of contributory old age pensions-


Grant Campbell: May I ask the
hon. gentleman a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -of the Liberal party had not made any impression-
Disabled Persons Act


Grant Campbell: May I ask the
hon. member a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The hon. member for
Bonavista-Twillingate has not yielded the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, when I was interrupted by someone whom I cannot see, the Prime Minister said that the Liberal policy or the Liberal program for a contributory old age security system, to be erected on the basis we already have, had made no impression on the public. About that matter, of course, the public will one day give judgment and it may not be long from now. However, the Liberal plan certainly made a most profound impression on hon. gentlemen opposite as they cannot talk about anything else. From the Prime Minister down, they have become obsessed with it and they have been so obsessed ever since it was announced. I am convinced that the reason for this obsession undoubtedly is this. The Prime Minister has all those public relations people with whom he is surrounded who keep him insulated from the public, from the public business and the duties of government and who keep him constantly in the stratosphere of public relations. These gentlemen have been saying, "This Liberal program has made a real impression on the public and you have got to deflate it somehow".
I think there was only one deflation this afternoon and that was the deflation of the speech of the Prime Minister by my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, it would not be necessary at all for me to take any part whatsoever in this debate were it not for the fact that the Prime Minister made certain totally irrelevant observations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. There is such a marked propensity toward interruptions tonight that I would ask all hon. members to co-operate so that we may get on with the study of this resolution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was saying, sir, that if it had not been for certain utterly irrelevant and also utterly incorrect observations made by the Prime Minister I would not have taken any part in this debate at all this evening. The Prime Minister sought to give the impression that nothing could be done by the government to provide a contributory old age program until there had been a constitutional amendment. This discovery of the Prime Minister was made only in the year 1962. He did not indicate that to the people in 1958 when he was telling them that as soon as the election was over they would get

Disabled Persons Act
a contributory system. He did not tell them that in 1959 when the Clark report was first received. He did not tell them that in 1960 when it was gathering dust, and he did not tell them that in 1961 when it was gathering more dust. It was only in 1962 on the eve of an election that he suddenly discovered that there had to be a constitutional amendment.
It may be-I do not know and I suggest that neither does anyone else with certainty- that for some of the ancillary features that might be desirable in a contributory old age security program a further constitutional amendment would be required; but the amendment of 1951 was made precisely for the purpose of providing a constitutional foundation for contributory old age pensions and there is no reason on earth why a contributory old age pension bill should not be before the house and under debate right now if the government had wanted to carry out the promise it made four years ago. But the government did not want to do so. They have no program, they have no scheme and they are hiding behind this latest smokescreen and rather hoping that they can use the same tired old promise to win the coming election.


John Cameron Pallett: Has the hon. member read the letter from Premier Lesage before saying that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have read Mr. Lesage's letter very carefully.
Mr. Pallet!: So have I. Did you understand it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Lesage was a distinguished member of this house when the hon. gentleman was still in the nursery. Mr. Lesage was one of three or four people who had more than anybody else in this country to do with the fact that we have universal old age pensions today on a scale that is higher than any other country in the world-


William Moore Benidickson: He was chairman of the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and that was also higher than the scale in any other country in the world, including the rich United States, in 1957.


John Cameron Pallett: Does the hon. member disagree with the letter from Premier Lesage?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member would make his own speech on his own time and not interrupt me I would be obliged.


John Cameron Pallett: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I was saying, Mr. Lesage was very familiar with what happened in 1951. What happened then was that the scheme for universal old age pensions which we now have, and for which this government is seeking to take so much credit, was shown to the provincial premiers, including the friend of hon. gentlemen opposite, Mr. Maurice Duplessis. They were shown the whole scheme before they were asked to approve a constitutional amendment and all of them, even including that great autonomist, approved that amendment at that time.
What has Mr. Lesage said in his letter? He has said, "Show us your scheme. Let us know what you are going to do. Put up your scheme and then we will see what we ought to do. We are not going to give you powers until we know what powers you want." In other words, what Mr. Lesage has done is to call their hollow bluff. That is what he has done. He has called their hollow bluff and their faces are very red. That is what he has done, and I thank the hon. member. I had not intended to deal with this point but I thank him for giving me the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Pallet!: Where does Premier Lesage indicate that no constitutional amendment is required? Would you point that out in his letter? Indicate where the premier of Quebec says that no constitutional amendment is required.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have said what I wish to say about this subject and I now want to go on to discuss that collection of misrepresentations that we were given this afternoon by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister talked about the base year. The only thing that was base in what the Prime Minister talked about was his argument.


John Cameron Pallett: It was a Liberal administration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The year that he picked was the year 1956-57. The Prime Minister, I assume, after five years, though I am not sure this is true because he knows so little about government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Look who is talking.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, and I can tell the hon. gentleman a good deal about that subject. Any man who is absent from his office one day out of every two for three months cannot be doing his job, and that is the Prime Minister's record in the last three months of 1961.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member is entirely incorrect in that statement. There is nobody in attendance at his office in Ottawa more than the Prime Minister of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister's loyalty does him more credit than his judgment.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I still say that that is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister's loyalty does him more credit than his judgment.


Jay Waldo Monteith: By golly, you know it too. That is an absolute lie.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. Once again I would ask all hon. members to co-operate. It is quite impossible for the hon. member who has the floor to continue unless hon. members desist from interjections from their seats.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I could not agree more, Mr. Chairman, provided the hon. member sticks to the truth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There were no similar interjections from this side when the Prime Minister was denaturing the truth this afternoon. He was allowed to do it, and I think we in the minority, notwithstanding the howling members led by the minister who want to prevent free speech in the house, should be allowed-


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


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


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


An hon. Member:: There is no point of order there.


Henry Frank Jones: On a point of order; if you Liberals will keep quiet enough so that the chairman can hear me-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Henry Frank Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if the Liberals will keep quiet so that the chairman can hear me-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Henry Frank Jones: Would you like to remain quiet so that the chairman can hear me?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order.


Henry Frank Jones: I wish to raise a point of order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I would ask the hon. member to proceed immediately with his point of order.


Henry Frank Jones: I shall do so if you can hear me, Mr. Chairman. Not ten minutes ago you
Disabled Persons Act
called the committee to order because the hon. member who is speaking now was being interrupted so that no one could hear him and by members of his own party. The allegation he has made at this time is sheer nonsense. I think the Chair should take notice of the allegation he has made because he was interrupted so frequently and so loudly by his own members that we on this side could not hear him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that even I can proceed very much longer if Your Honour does not give a ruling on that kind of alleged point of order. The hon. gentleman did not like the argument I was making and he interrupted me on what he claimed was a point of order in order to seek to reply to my argument. It is impossible to continue if that kind of abuse by the majority is to be permitted.


Paul Raymond Martineau: As I stated before, the hon. member has the floor and I think everyone wishes he should keep the floor until he yields or until his time has expired. I would ask hon. members to co-operate with the Chair in enforcing the rules of this committee. I think that the point of order the parliamentary secretary has just raised is not, in reality, a point of order. I, therefore, yield the floor to the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank you very much for your consideration, Mr. Chairman.
What I want to do, sir, is to point out one very simple fact. The Prime Minister sought to make a comparison this afternoon between the payments that were made on what he was pleased to call social justice but what normal people call social security in 1956-57, which was the last fiscal year of Liberal government. Of course, this is a very clever, but very specious piece of argument because the ordinary person does not stop to think that, while it is true 1956-57 was the last full fiscal year the Liberal party was in office, it was not the last year for which the Liberal party was exclusively responsible for the level of expenditure. All the expenditures that were authorized to be made in the year 1957-58, with one small exception and that small exception was the amendments that were made to the old age security and related measures in November, 1957-


An hon. Member:: Small is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was very small, indeed, in relation to the total expenditures. I say that, with that one small exception, every other expenditure that was made in the fiscal year 1957-58 was authorized by parliament before the dissolution in 1957 on the recommendation of the Liberal government of that

Disabled Persons Act
day. All these expenditures, therefore, in the year 1957-58, with a relatively small item substracted, are part of the Liberal record and not part of the Tory record. This is one of those public relations gimmicks that the Tory party has been using steadily for four years in attempting to confuse the people.
The facts, sir, were put on the record of this parliament two years and seven days ago. They are very clear and they are very simple. I can read them from the record if hon. members so desire, but I think I can summarize them even more easily. I will summarize them, and if I am challenged to put them on the record I will be glad to do so. I should like first to make my summary. The increases in social security expenditure that were authorized by a Liberal government in the last budget of Mr. Walter Harris amounted in total to a larger sum of money than the expenditures that were authorized by the Tory government in the fall of 1957.
I have the exact figures here. People talk about the $6, but they never say anything about the fact that family allowances were increased during that session as well and that the actual social security payments authorized by the Liberal government in the year 1957 were bigger than the increases brought in by the right hon. gentleman in November 1957. This is a fact that has been admitted in this house by the Minister of Finance when he was forced to answer a question and produce statistics. It is a fact that no one can controvert.
Now, a lot of cheap-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Those fellows behind you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -political arguments-


An hon. Member:: They are not sheep, they are lambs.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A lot of cheap political argument has been made about the $6 increase in old age pensions in 1957. However, that $6 figure was precisely 15 per cent more than the old age pensions were at that time. In the interval, between the time when all parties, with the enthusiastic support of the present Minister of Finance, decided in 1951 that $40 was an appropriate universal old age pension, and 1957, the increase in the cost of living was precisely 15 per cent. I do not say that $40 was good enough in 1951. But everyone in this house said so. I was not a member at that time. Everyone, all parties, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, voted for it. They acclaimed it. They said it was a good thing. If it was a good thing in 1951, why did it suddenly

become a bad thing in 1957? This was difficult for anyone to understand, that is for anyone who has any regard for principles or any sense of responsibility.
But it was not only the old age pensions that were increased in 1957. Family allowances were also increased. There was an increase right across the board in the whole field of social security, and there never has been since. What is more, sir, except for certain veterans benefits, there has been no increase of any kind whatever by the present government in any social security payments since the 1958 election until we arrive on the eve of another election.
Now, what they did between two elections is, of course, open to many constructions. Since I, unlike hon. gentlemen opposite, do not want to impute motives, I will impute none. I leave that to the public. The extraordinary thing is that every promise they made about what they would do after the 1958 election was forgotten until January 18, 1962. Then, they find the constitution stands in the way. This is that great party of social justice, social justice on the eve of an election and no more social justice until the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The people of Canada may be fooled once with this kind of thing, but they are not going to be fooled a second time. We have had the tears dropping in this parliament today over the provinces and the wonderful payments to the provinces. The payments Mr. Harris and Mr. St. Laurent asked parliament to approve in 1956, that is the increase in 1956, were bigger than any increase that has been made since by the present government. The increase between 1956-57 and 1957-58 which was made by a Liberal government, not by a Tory government, was over $100 million. They have not made such a big increase since. This is a fact, and it is a fact that cannot be denied.
I just looked up Mr. Harris' budget speech to see what happened the year before and there was a $40 million increase the year before in that budget for the year. Between the years 1955-56 and 1956-57, there was a $40 million increase and then there was a $100 million increase the next year. Nothing comparable has come from hon. gentlemen at all. We did these things and we kept this country going. We kept the country going, and we maintained a surplus. We were paying off the national debt and the country was developing. It was prosperous.
What has happened? Perhaps it was only an accident, perhaps it was only a coincidence, but it is an extraordinary thing that this coincidence should have occurred.


Mr. Campbell (Siormonl):: May I ask the
hon gentleman a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, you may not.


Grant Campbell: May I ask the
hon. gentleman a question?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order; the hon. member
has not yielded the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was an extraordinary thing, sir, that within six months of the advent to power of the present government, stagnation set in throughout this country and it has not ceased since. In that whole four-year period from 1958-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the whole of it-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Speak about the $6 increase.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, and the two flags as well. In the whole of that period production per capita has fallen in this country. The average Canadian is not producing as much today as he was in 1957. That is a fact.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's Wesi):: That is a falsehood.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has been put on the record over and over again. That is the explanation of the deficits, not all the wonderful things they have claimed to have done for the unemployed who still number half a million of our fellow citizens. I say there is only one way in which we can have a proper social security system, and that is to have a productive economy which will produce enough to enable us to do for the less fortunate of our fellow citizens what we want to do, what we ought to do, and what this government is not doing.
The plain fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister asks us to tell him which of these expenditures we would eliminate. Well, sir, we would never have encouraged the huge, additional expenditures for the interest charges on the debt we have to pay. We would never have incurred that because we would have managed the finances as all Liberal governments did in very difficult times, reducing the burden of interest instead of increasing it. That is one way of eliminating deficits and I think there are quite a number of other ways we would have eliminated expenditures.
I would say for a start that 90 per cent of all these flights by ministers around the world could be eliminated without any loss to anybody. One could go on and on, but the main thing is that the elimination of social security payments is not the way to approach it. Reduction is a Tory approach.
Disabled Persons Act
It is the approach of people who do not believe in the future, of people who really believe that everything is static and stagnating. The thing to do is get a government which believes in the future, which moves with the future, which deals with the problems as they arise, solves them, and keeps Canada in step with the rest of the world.
I might relate that one of my friends asked me the other day: under the Diefenbaker government has Canada any friend left anywhere in the world, except Castro?


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: Go down to the UN and find out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To the Minister of Trade and Commerce he is a good friend. The fact is that this country has not grown. It has ceased to grow. It is stagnating, and that happened coincidentally with the arrival of a Tory government. Whether it is coincidence or whatever it may be, it does appear to be a fact, as it was in 1930 and as it was in 1911. It is one of those facts that I believe the Canadian people will take into account the next time they take into account the kind of government they want in this country.


Grant Campbell: The hon. gentleman seems to be running away from me all evening. May I ask him a question? I am addressing it to this master of coincidence. Is it also a coincidence that both of the recent depressions in 1929 and 1956 commenced when the Liberals were in office? Is that also a coincidence?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, since this was a rather complicated question perhaps I might point out to the hon. gentleman that the year 1956 was the greatest boom year in the whole history of Canada since John Cabot came and discovered the country in the first place. It was so good that in 1957 some 280,000 people came from other countries to settle in Canada.


Grant Campbell: What about 1929?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I recognize the Solicitor General.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Chairman, it is with some timidity and trepidation that I follow the very experienced statesman who has just taken his seat. He is watching us all. He knows how many days we spend in our offices and how many days we spend out of them. However, he has made several statements tonight which I challenge him to prove. He asked how could the Prime Minister govern the country if he was out of his office one day out of every two.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.

Disabled Persons Act


William Joseph Browne: That is a very serious allegation to make against the Prime Minister. He is alleging and insinuating that the Prime Minister, it he is going around the country, is going around it on his own business, his own pleasure, and is not dealing with the affairs of the nation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I point out-


William Joseph Browne: Now, you sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He is going to Tory meetings.


William Joseph Browne: I do not
know as much about former prime ministers as the hon. gentleman who has taken his seat. He has lived with them so much that he knows a great deal about them. However I know something about this Prime Minister and I do not think there has ever been one who has been in his office so early and worked so hard at his duties as the present Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Joseph Browne: Anyone who knows the Prime Minister knows he does not begin his work at nine o'clock or ten o'clock in the morning. He is up much earlier than that, working on the country's affairs. He is in his office at eight o'clock in the morning every day, and is attending to the business of the country when he is going around.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He is going to Tory meetings all over the country.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I would ask the house to give the minister its undivided attention, as it did to previous speakers.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. gentleman also said that the Prime Minister had denatured the truth. I do not know if that is a parliamentary expression but certainly the imputation was that the Prime Minister was not speaking the truth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What I said-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. The hon. member has declared he is rising on a question of privilege and, according to the rules, he must be heard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege-and I am sure the minister would wish me to raise this-the minister suggested I had accused the Prime Minister of saying something which he knew was not true. I did nothing of the kind. I do not think the Prime Minister knows the facts at all.
[Mr. Pickersgill.)


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: That is
even worse.


William Joseph Browne: The hon.
gentleman is very expert in worming himself out of the situation which he got himself into when he used that expression. That is what he is doing. He is backing down on the statement he made.
The hon. gentleman also spoke about all the Liberal government had done, especially before the election of 1957. Apparently they did all that out of no other motive than goodness and purity of heart, and not with any thought of getting votes when the election came along. It was all done out of goodness, and all the money that was paid in 1957-58, except for one small amount, was voted and provided for in the budget of Mr. Harris in 1957. What is that small amount? Nine dollars increase per month for the old age pensioners and-


Some hon. Members:: Six.


William Joseph Browne: No, the hon.
gentleman referred to the $9 increase of the Conservative government, that little amount that the Conservative government had given.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In relation to the whole amount.


William Joseph Browne: If $9 was
small, what was $6?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman forgets it was $46, not $6.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. gentleman said it was small, $9 a month. But how much was it? It was $90 million a year. This is what he called small. If that is what he calls small, he has by far exceeded the former minister of trade and commerce who is reputed to have said, "What is a million?" because he says, "What is $90 million?"


Hédard-J. Robichaud: So what.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. gentleman made so many controversial statements that I will not have time tonight to deal with them all, but he did say, correcting the hon. member for Greenwood, that his leader had said-and I know he said it because I know how careful he was when he said it-that if the rate of growth had continued at the same rate from 1957 to 1961 as it did from 1945 to 1957 they would not have had any deficits and they would have been able to do all those things.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. member for Greenwood drew the attention of the committee to the fact that there was a recession in the United States, and the hon.

member will admit, I think, that we are largely dependant upon economic conditions in the United States. Ii the United States is suffering a recession and they do not buy our goods, there is nothing on earth that can make them do so, and therefore we are bound to be affected by sales to the United States.


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


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I didn't think he would.


William Joseph Browne: In 1956 the former government was advised that a recession was approaching.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not true.


William Joseph Browne: That is the secret report which was suppressed and which was brought out by the Prime Minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not true at all.


William Joseph Browne: That is correct; that is what happened.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That happens not to be true.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. gentleman-


David James Walker: You will be locked up one of these days, you Pickersgillian twist.


William Moore Benidickson: That is the kind of government we have. You are going to lock us up. Okay, lock us up.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. gentleman repeated what his leader had said. He spoke about the wonderfully prosperous times and all the good things they would have done if they had been in office. But they have lost all their brain trust that was with the government; they only have three or four of them there now. I do not know what they think they could do.
The Leader of the Opposition stated that these things would happen, not only if the rate of growth had continued but if it had continued at 4 per cent, which he said was the rate of growth up to 1957. He stated, without anything to back it up, that the rate of growth had declined. I have here the gross national product figures provided by the dominion bureau of statistics, which give the gross national product for 1956 as $30.6 billion, and for 1961, $37.4 billion, which is an increase-


Chesley William Carter: Are they constant dollars?


William Joseph Browne: These are dominion bureau of statistics figures.
26207-1-45J
Disabled Persons Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the increase in population.


William Joseph Browne: They are-


Douglas Scott Harkness: You had better not talk about constant dollars. You devalued the Canadian dollar more than anyone else in Canadian history.


William Joseph Browne: I have the population increase here, too. The population increased from 16 million to 18 million in those five years. The figure for 1956 was 16 million people and in 1961 it was 18 million. That is an increase of 2 million, which is 2J per cent per year. There was an increase of 22 per cent in the gross national product in the last five years, from 1956 to 1961, or more than 4 per cent per annum during that period, and it is increasing now. This is a very wide ranging debate, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. member and his leader have made it so. But here are the figures.


Lionel Chevrier: It was not the Prime Minister?


William Joseph Browne: Here are the figures, which show an increase of 19 per cent in exports between 1956 and 1961. Imports increased only 3.5 per cent. Therefore hon. members can see that we have wiped out the deficit between imports and exports.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Wiped out the deficit?


William Joseph Browne: The deficit in trade that existed for many years until this year. The personal income of the people of Canada has increased by 30 per cent in those five years; labour income has increased by 30 per cent in those five years; corporation profits have increased by 22 per cent; the industrial production index, despite what the hon. gentleman said, that there was no increase in production, has increased by 15 per cent; consumer spending has increased by 30 per cent, and total personal savings have increased by 30 per cent.


Mr. Crestohl:: Then why all the difficulty in the country?


William Joseph Browne: A man must be out of his wits to make the statements that the hon. gentleman made who just sat down.


William Moore Benidickson: Lock him up.


John Cameron Pallett: There is no argument about that.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, I could go on and deal with other statements that he made, but I want to get back

Disabled Persons Act
to something the Leader of the Opposition stated this afternoon. I refer to this wonderful camouflage he made about these shared programs, shared programs which we put into effect. Our government put these into effect because we increased them from-


John Whitney Pickersgill: You mean, the taxpayers paid for them.


John Ferguson Browne: -$110 million in 1956-57 to $550 million in 1961-62, an increase of 400 per cent. I want to refer to what the Leader of the Opposition said-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That includes hospital insurance, which the Liberals put on the statute books.


John Ferguson Browne: Yes, the Liberals put it on the statute books and kept it there; but we brought it into effect, and we brought it into effect very soon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And you did not repeal it.


John Ferguson Browne: Here is what the Leader of the Opposition said, as I put it down. I may not have got every word right, but this is the impression he gave me. When he was speaking at Guelph he said that when the Liberal government was restored to power, which will be a long time yet-


An hon. Member:: Never.


John Ferguson Browne: He said, with regard to the shared programs, "When we find that they are well established and the provinces wish to carry them on, we will let the provinces administer them". I wish he would explain what he meant. What did he mean? Let us take all these different programs and see what they mean. What do they mean, for example, in regard to agriculture? I am not familar with what goes on in other provinces but I have some idea of what goes on in Newfoundland. The federal government is doing a reclamation job on bogs in Newfoundland and we are paying, I think it is about $150,000 a year and the provincial government puts up $150,000. How is the Leader of the Opposition going to arrange to give compensation to other provinces if they do not go in for that sort of program? He did not explain how, and I do not think he could.
Let us take the health grants for cancer, for various investigations of diseases, X-ray equipment, and so on. If one province goes in for it, or two or three, how is the Leader of the Opposition going to compensate the other provinces for what they do not spend and what they do not do? It seems to me that this is an impossibility.
We have had programs in connection with hospital insurance. If a province does not come in on hospital insurance, how does the

Leader of the Opposition intend to compensate the provinces that do not come in under that scheme? Would the honourable, the brilliant and experienced statesman from Bona-vista-Twillingate explain how the Leader of the Opposition is going to do that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman like me to do it now?


John Ferguson Browne: No; you have lots of time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be delighted to do so, sir, if I would be permitted.


John Ferguson Browne: I do not
know how many times the hon. gentleman interrupted last session but I have a fair idea of how many speeches he has made in this house-many more than I have-and I hope he will allow me to say what I want to say.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman should not ask me questions.


John Ferguson Browne: You can
make a note of them or read them in Hansard tomorrow. It is possible, of course, in regard to disability pensions because we know how many people qualify for these pensions at the present time. But with regard to other things we cannot be certain. Take the vocational training school program, that tremendous program which was introduced by our increasing grants to the provinces to the amount of 75 per cent, a scheme which has had such a magnificent response from all the provinces and which would involve a total expenditure of between $200 million and $250 million. How would the Leader of the Opposition go about compensating a province which did not go into a scheme like that? The hon. member can make a note of that question and answer it tomorrow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Very easy.


John Ferguson Browne: Oh, I know everything seems so easy to the hon. member, but others do not think his answers are the real answers, after all. Then we must remember that there are three kinds of roads subject to grants-the trans-Canada highway, roads to resources and access roads. If certain provinces do not take advantage of these grants how can they be given compensation? I say the statement made tonight by the Leader of the Opposition is only throwing dust into the eyes of the people and has no substance at all. Then again, with regard to civil defence and with regard to municipal winter works, how would compensation be assessed? How would compensation be awarded in respect of non-participation in the program under which the federal government allows a 25 per cent reduction

to those municipalities who put in storm sewers and main sewers, provided the work is carried out before March 31, 1963? Turning to housing, I remind the committee that the federal government through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is prepared to pay 75 per cent toward the cost of developing federal-provincial projects concerned with clearing slums and rebuilding those areas, together with 75 per cent of the loss in operating the homes which are built. If a province or a municipality does not take advantage of such an offer, how does the Leader of the Opposition intend to compensate that province or municipality?
There are some other schemes and plans which we have brought into effect and which have been most beneficial to this country. If we look at the figures

and I should like to repeat them-we find that in 1956-57 the total amount of conditional grants to Newfoundland, for example, was $6J million. In 1961-62 it was $23,400,000, an increase of $17 million or nearly three times the 1956-57 figure. The other night the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said: "but did not we draw up the estimates for 195758?" I did not hear his question. I was ready with the answer to the question and, in fact, I had it right in front of me at the time. I found the question on record in Hansard the next day, but I do not know how it got there. I suppose I could not hear the hon. member at the time. I suppose there was a little interrupting going on. Let us take the hon. member's question and see what the figures were for 1957-58, for unconditional grants to Newfoundland. It was less than in 1956-57-only $6 million. If you begin in 1957-58, then the increase in four years amounts to over $17 million, an increase of over $4 million a year in respect of a little province which has a population of only 480,000. In the same way there is this increase of conditional grants for Canada from $110 million in 1956-57 to $550 million. It seems to me that hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house are expert in making statements but are unable to support them with facts and figures as I have tried to do now.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: We do not wish to hold up this measure, but there is one thing I want to put on the record, and it is this: in the Conservative Canadian of December 1960, there is a paragraph which struck me the other day, when it said that the cost of
Business of the House family allowances had increased by almost $100 million in three years, a percentage increase of 23.6. I wonder if the Conservative party will take credit for the increase of children in the country?
In 1956 there were 5,377,436 children whose parents were in receipt of family allowances. In 1960, there were 6,219,989. If this government is going to take credit for everything that happens in the field of social security- a term which they have now changed, by calling it social justice-I wonder whether they will take credit for this increase in the number of births in Canada?


William Arnold Peters: It is unfortunate that the time has gone by so rapidly. I regret that the hon. gentleman who has just sat down, the minister without responsibility, never spoke about the particular subject under discussion except in a passing manner.
I am interested in these pensions and I hope that tomorrow I shall have an opportunity to say something about them. The discussion which we have had today was certainly of interest. We have learned a great deal about the different opinions held on social justice and other things, but very little has been said about disability pensions. I should like to discuss these.
May I call it ten o'clock?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Tomorrow is Friday and I would hope the leader of the house could, for the convenience of all hon. members, indicate not merely what the business will be tomorrow but, especially for the sake of those who go home to Toronto and Montreal, tell us what we may expect on Monday and subsequent days of next week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If I could be assured that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would be away tomorrow I would announce the business for next week, but he will likely be here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that a bargain?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Having made notable progress today we shall continue with the same order of business-the nine items-as I listed last night.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 9, 1962