[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the name of Mr. Timmins be substituted for that of Mr. Smith (Calgary West) on the select standing committee on industrial relations.
That the name of Mr. Murphy be substituted for that of Mr. Smith (Calgary West) on the select standing committee on public accounts.
That the name of Mr. Miller be substituted for that of Mr. Smith (Calgary West) on the special committee on radio broadcasting.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question, of privilege. During my absence from the house yesterday afternoon, after which I returned last evening, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) referred to myself. After referring to the C.C.F., he is reported on page 4644 of yesterday's Hansard as saying:
-they have the same opportunity of doing what I think my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) did and what the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) did. They called up George Drew on the telephone anil said, "'You had better increase your pension as a result of Martin's bill."
I want to say, with all the emphasis and all the force which the rules of this house permit to a member, that in. that statement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare there is not the slightest word of truth. There is not-
An hon. MEMBER:: That is enough.


Mr. FLEMING:: -a scintilla or iota of truth in any word or syllable or letter of that statement. I did not telephone the premier of Ontario, and-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -he did not call me to ask my advice.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I want to say this-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think the hon. member has had an opportunity of stating his question of privilege.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With great respect, the suggestion has been made here that there was some communication between the Premier of Ontario and myself arising out of the statement made by the minister. I want to say that there was no such communication-


An hon. MEMBER:: All right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -between us. The minister's statement is a piece of monstrous impertinence.


Hon. PAXIL MARTIN (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I have listened to what the hon. gentleman has said-
Feed Grain

Some hon. MEMBERS : Order.
Some hon. MEMBERS : Withdraw.


James Horace King: Is the minister rising on a question of privilege?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


James Horace King: I would ask the minister to state his question of privilege and be as brief as possible.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say that when it was pointed out to me yesterday on behalf of the hon. member that he had not said that, I withdrew it. I am now faced with the fact that the hon. member is not on speaking terms with the premier of Ontario.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame.


Mr. FRASER:: That is dirty politics.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


James Horace King: Order. I would ask hon.
members to behave like members of the House of Commons and not like children.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just made a statement-


James Horace King: Order. I have permitted the hon. member to state his question of privilege. I would ask hon. members again not to act like children but as members of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On another question of
privilege, Mr. Speaker, the minister has just made another statement which reflects on the privileges of members of the house. He said that the premier of Ontario and I were not on speaking terms. There is no truth in that at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


James Horace King: Order. Hon. members
on both sides of the house must realize that certain remarks which have been made in the house in the last few days are not a credit to the dignity and decorum of the chamber. I would ask the members to proceed with the business of the house.



FEED GRAIN


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, may I make a very quiet statement with respect to supplies of feed grain in British Columbia.
In answer to various inquiries and representations which have been made in the house in respect to a present shortage of supplies

of feed grain in British Columbia, I wish to state that the present situation is acute in eastern Canada as well as in British Columbia. It has not been possible for western shippers to satisfy the effective over-all demand, which has been augmented by the concern over eastern crops.
During recent weeks the bulk of the movement in coarse grains for feed has been to eastern Canada, with comparatively little moving to British Columbia. Oats and barley shipped to eastern Canada are sold on the basis of ceiling prices in store Fort William/ Port Arthur, 65 cents for oats, plus charges for shipment and handling east of Fort William/Port Arthur, less freight subsidy paid by the government. The same grains shipped to British Columbia are sold on the basis of ceiling prices in store Vancouver, plus handling charges, less freight subsidy paid by government. The current over-all shortage of coarse grains as compared with effective demand has resulted in the purchase of these grains by western interior mills, or for shipment to eastern Canada, on the basis of Vancouver export freight rates whereas previously coarse grains were purchased in Alberta on the basis of Fort William/Port Arthur freight rates and were shipped to British Columbia to the full extent of the requirements of that province at approximately two to three cents per bushel less than would have been the case had they been purchased on the Vancouver rate. In other words, British Columbia requirements were filled first and the balance of the oats and barley then moved eastward.
In, view of the changed circumstances, it may probably be necessary for the British Columbia feeder to pay from two to three cents per bushel more for his feed oats and barley than has formerly been the case; that is. he will pay $1.90 a hundredweight for feed oats. But even though he does pay such increased prices, they are still within the ceiling price regulations currently in effect and will still be lower than those now paid by the eastern consumer.
The government no longer possesses the power to direct shipments of oats and barley from Alberta into British Columbia, but it is felt that the British Columbia dealers can place themselves in a competitive position with respect to the eastern trade and will thus have equal access to available supplies. The situation is under constant review by the Department of Agriculture and the Canadian wheat board. It is felt that the companies who have traditionally serviced the British Columbia market will continue to

United Nations
supply these requirements on a basis of equality, having regard to available supplies.
I should add that with respect to feed wheat, the British Columbia market is currently amply supplied. During the last two weeks, approximately 400,000 bushels of low-grade wheat for feeding purposes has been released by the Canadian wheat board to the trade at Vancouver, and further reserves are being held at Alberta country points for shipment to British Columbia in accordance with indicated requirements.
It is reasonable to assume that if western crop conditions continue as favourable as they are at present, producers' marketings will increase, thus relieving the present tight situation.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: I wanted to ask a question in relation to the statement read by the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) for the Minister of Agriculture, but I see he is not in his seat. Perhaps some other member of the government might bring it to his attention and be good) enough to ask him for a reply. It has to do with the possibility referred to by the minister of an increase of one or two cents per pound in price to the feeders of grain in British Columbia. Since this is so important a matter to those who are feeding live stock I would: ask the minister whether instead of doing it the way he suggested, he would consider doing it by increasing the rail subsidy to take care of what would otherwise be an increase in price.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I shall be pleased to see that my hon. friend's question is brought to the attention of the minister.
On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: In view of the fact that the government have officially admitted today that the supply of coarse grains is sufficient to feed our stock, will the Minister of Finance reconsider the question of permitting the restaurants to serve meat on our national holiday?


An hon. MEMBER:: Hot dogs.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hot dogs my foot. We want meat.



ADVERTISING OF CANADIAN PRODUCTS IN GREAT BRITAIN

Ernest Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer a question asked yesterday by the
hon. member for Brant (Mr. Charlton) in respect to the advertising of Canadian cheese in Great Britain.
During the war and since, the sale in the United Kingdom of cheese and other strictly rationed products as national products has not been permitted. Advertising generally has not been considered desirable and certain types of advertising have been prohibited. The dominions, including Canada, accordingly discontinued all advertising. Recently some general forms of advertising have been undertaken, and in this regard Canada has required by regulation that all Canadian cheese exported be marked "Canada". Every Canadian cheddar cheese weighing more than sixty pounds now exported bears the word "Canada" fifty-eight times.



UNITED NATIONS


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will be aware that this day marks an important anniversary. On June 26, 1945, at the city of San Francisco, the charter of the united nations was signed in the name of the peoples of fifty nations. These nations, which had fought together successfully in war, now resolved to combine their efforts to accomplish the noble aims which they had written into the charter.
The organization which they thus created was to have within its purview every aspect of international action. In the important field of international economic and social cooperation Canada has had a particular interest. Export trade is the basis of this country's employment and prosperity, and Canada has therefore a real stake in the economic well-being of the world. It is in our own interest for us to do all we can to assist in its restoration and maintenance. Economic isolation is for Canada, as for all nations, as impractical a policy as political isolation.
The importance of this aspect of the work of the united nations is recognized in the preamble of the charter in the resolution "to employ international machinery for the promotion of economic and social advancement of all peoples" and thus "to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom." For the achievement of these ends the economic and social council was created. It was given responsibility, under the author-
Wheat

ity of the general assembly, for the solution of international economic, social, health and related problems.
In the discharge of this extensive task the economic and social council supervises and controls the subordinate machinery of commissions and subcommissions and coordinates the activities of the various specialized agencies with which it has entered into relationship. This important work is less spectacular and less well known than that of other united nations organs. It is, however, the real foundation of international cooperation and of lasting peace.
The united nations and its organs have given us the opportunity of cooperating to rebuild a world economic system. It is too easy, in the midst of the difficulties and risks involved in this great task, to surrender to impatience and dissatisfaction with the measure of progress which has been made in these two short years. We must, however, Temember that the aims of the charter cannot be lightly won. Every effort is required to make the work of the economic and social council a success and Canada has, I think, a particular contribution to make.
I am particularly pleased to announce on this day the Canadian delegation which will attend the fifth session of the economic and social council, scheduled to commence in New York on July 19. My colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), will head the delegation. Doctor George F. Davidson, the deputy minister of welfare, will be the minister's alternate, and officers of the departments of External Affairs and of National Health and Welfare will serve as advisers. I am sure hon. members will join with me in wishing our delegation every success in its endeavour.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I am very glad the Prime Minister has brought this before the house. I have always felt that despite the difficulties that confront the nations which form the united nations, they should not deter us. When we think that we have been a confederation for eighty years and yet have not achieved complete unity throughout the country, we should not be alarmed at the difficulties which have arisen in connection with the united nations.
I am glad the Prime Minister emphasized the work of the specialized agencies of the economic and social council; for I believe, in spite of the fact that the glare of public opinion is on the security council, the greatest hope for world peace lies in laying the foundation of an economic and social order which will bring justice to all peoples.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF 1SM7-48 PROGRAMME FOR ONTARIO WINTER WHEAT

Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: On behalf of my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) who is primarily responsible in the matter of wheat marketing, and in my own capacity as the minister responsible for price control, I wish to advise the house of the government's 1947-48 programme for Ontario winter wheat.
In announcing the 1946-47 policy last July, it was pointed out that the government at that time had in mind an increase in the ceiling price applicable to Ontario wheat, but that, owing to developments in price control last summer, it was necessary to continue the ceiling at $1.26 for the crop year ending June 30, 1947. The position of the Ontario wheat producer, however, was improved by the inclusion of a subsidy of nine cents per bushel and a payment of five cents per bushel at the time of delivery, as a fixed and final payment from the Ontario wheat flour equalization fund. For 1946-47 the Ontario wheat producer, therefore, received the ceiling price of $126 per bushel, Montreal basis, plus an additional 14 cents per bushel, bringing the total price up to $1.40 per bushel.
For the crop year beginning July 1, 1947, the government has decided to increase the ceiling price of Ontario wheat to $1.55 per bushel, Montreal basis, bringing it approximately into line with the domestic price at which the wheat board sells western hard wheat. Appropriate adjustments will be made in ceiling prices applicable to products of Ontario winter wheat. With this increase in the ceiling price, a direct subsidy will not be required during the coming year.
In addition to the increased price authorized by the new ceiling of $1.55 per bushel Montreal basis, producers will receive at time of delivery a payment in respect to equalization fees collected on exports of Ontario winter wheat flour. This payment will be eight cents per bushel. The amount of equalization fees collected by the government will vary depending on the difference between $1.55 and prices on world markets, but it is considered desirable, in order to reduce administrative costs and to give a measure of certainty to producers, to fix the producers' payment at a definite figure, representing the estimated total receipts during the year.
In accordance with government policy, steps will be taken to prevent fortuitous profits in respect of stocks of Ontario winter wheat and flour on June 30.

Criminal Code


Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: On the basis of the statement made by the Minister of Finance with regard to the price of Ontario wheat, I wish to direct a question to him. Can he give the amount of Ontario wheat or wheat flour that is exported under the British contract and the amounts exported as No. 2 wheat? If he has not the answer at hand he can take this question as notice and answer later.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall have to take it as notice and get the information and give it to the hon. gentleman.



REDISTRIBUTION


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: I wish to present to the Honourable the House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled the petition of a number of Canadians residing in Yukon, petitioning against the addition of the district of Mackenzie and Northwest territories to the Yukon territory as an electoral district and giving very convincing reasons therefor.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 364, to amend the criminal code.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. ILSLEY:: This bill contains a number of amendments to the criminal code. There are thirty-four sections in it, and it would be difficult to explain the bill on the first reading, since it deals with so many subjects. The various provisions of the bill will speak for themselves. I might mention one important section. It is proposed to add a new part to the criminal code, called part X (A), dealing with habitual criminals. This part has been recommended by the commissioners on uniformity of legislation, and in the main follows United Kingdom legislation on the same subject. The new part will provide for the preventive detention for an indeterminate period of those who, over eighteen years of age, are convicted four times of indictable offences, the first three of which are punishable with at least five years' imprisonment, and who are leading persistently criminal lives.
The preventive detention will not be automatic but will be discretionary with the court. No person will be tried on a charge of being 83166-299
an habitual criminal unless the attorney general of the province in which the accused is to be tried consents. Provision is made for periodic review by the Minister of Justice of the condition, history and circumstances of the person preventively detained, with a view to determining whether he will be placed out on licence, and if so, on what conditions.
While legislation of this kind was recommended by the Archambault commission, the government has no wish to be dogmatic about the necessity for it, and while recommending it, is prepared to give careful consideration to any views which may be expressed by members of the house regarding it.
There are a number of other important provisions but I think they could be explained more properly when I move the second reading of the bill.


Mr. CHURCH:: May I ask the Attorney General, first, whether the bill he has introduced includes all the amendments to the criminal code for this session? Second, have the recommendations of the chief constables association, particularly the one regarding voluntary statements, been taken into consideration?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The bill contains all the amendments which the government proposes to submit to the house this session. With regard to the second part of the question, I am not sure that I know the recommendations of the chief constables association to which my hon. friend refers. A delegation came to see me a while ago and made certain submissions which I do not think we found ourselves able to accept, for reasons which I gave.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. TIMMINS:: 1.	What annual expenditures have the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Pensions and National Health contributed to cancer research between the years 1925 and 1945?
2.	During the past twenty years what efforts have been made either directly or indirectly by the Department of Pensions and National Health or the Department of National Health and Welfare to encourage any form of scientific research directed towards determining the cause and/or cure of cancer?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	None. Dominion government assistance to medical research is provided through the medical research division of the national research council.

46S6
Inquiries of the Ministry

2.	None, until the calling of a conference in January 1947 to discuss ways and means of developing a national cancer control programme.


Mr. MOORE:: 1.	Did the international emergency food control council recently increase the amount of sugar to the United States and Canada under the terms of the international sugar producers' pool ?
2.	If so, what increase was allotted to the United States?
3.	What increase was allotted to Canada?
4.	What steps have been taken by the government to increase consumers' quota for this year ?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	Yes.
2.	350.000 short tons.
3.	22,000 short tons.
4.	(a) In December 1946 all canned fruits were removed from the list of rationed' foods; in March 1947 maple products were derationed; and on June 9, jams, jellies, marmalades and honey were derationed, all without any decrease in the number of coupons available to consumers.
(b)	Effective April 1, 1947, the rate of validation of consumer coupons was increased from seven coupons per quarter to eight coupons per quarter (each coupon represents one pound of sugar).
(c)	On June 25, 1947, it was announced that an additional three or four coupons would be validated during the remainder of this calendar year.


Mr. HATFIELD:: How much wool was there in storage in Canada on the 1st of June, 1947?


Mr. MAYHEW:: The wartime prices and trade board has no official information as to the total amount of wool in storage in Canada as of June 1, 1947. Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation Limited held in storage at that date 72,387 pounds.


EMPLOYMENT SERVICE-KINGSTON-APPLICATIONS AND VACANCIES
Mr. PROBE:: With respect to the National Employment Service, Kingston, Ontario, how many unplaced applications for employment and how many unfilled vacancies were registered on Saturday, June 14, 1947?


Mr. MITCHELL:: Unplaced applicants:
male, 666; female, 175-841. Unfilled vacancies: male, 183; female, 126-309.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. H. WINTERS (Queens-Lunen-burg):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Further to a question raised recently in the house by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser), can the minister say if there is now any indication whether the Soviet authorities will without further delay grant Mrs. George Power an exit visa permitting her to be reunited with her husband in Canada?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): The only answer I can give to the hon. member's question is to make to the house a statement of the facts about this matter as they appear to be up to this time. These are the facts.
Mr. George F. Power of the Department of External Affairs was posted to the Canadian embassy in the U.S.S.R. in April, 1943. While in Moscow he met and married Miss Eleanora V. Kuznetsova, a ballerina. His wife is a Soviet citizen. She is also, because of her marriage, a British subject. The marriage was performed by civil contract on February 4, 1945, and was solemnized in a Roman Catholic church a few days later.
Mr. Power left Moscow on July 6, 1945, to return to the Department of External Affairs. Thus Mr. and Mrs. Power lived together for only five months before his return to duty in Ottawa. It was their confident hope at the time that she would join him in this country at an early date. However, nearly two years after Mr. Power's departure, they are still separated for reasons beyond their control.
Mrs. Power applied for a Soviet exit visa in February, 1945, shortly after her marriage. This application was refused in July, 1945. Since then the Canadian embassy in Moscow has approached the Soviet government six times on behalf of Mrs. Power in an effort to secure permission for her to leave the U.S.S.R. However, Mrs. Power has not yet been able to secure an exit visa and no reason has been given by the Soviet authorities for withholding permission for her to rejoin her husband.
The first approach by the Canadian embassy to the Soviet government was made in September, 1945, when Mr. Wilgress, who was then Canadian ambassador in Moscow, discussed the matter orally with Mr. Vyshinsky, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs in the U.S.S.R. Mr. Vyshinsky, in explaining the reasons for the delay, said that it was necessary for the Soviet authorities to make a thorough investi-

Inquiries oj the Ministry
gation into each application for an exit visa in order to be sure of the bona fides of the marriage before the visa could be granted to the Soviet wife of a foreigner. He added that each such investigation required some time. In March, 1946, Mr. Wilgress wrote to Mr. Vyshinsky. He pointed out that a year had elapsed) since Mrs. Power had first made her application for an exit visa and that the investigation must surely have been completed. He requested that the visa be granted without further delay. Two further approaches to the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs were made by the Canadian embassy in 1946, one in July and one in November. These all resulted in the same reply-that a decision by the competent Soviet authorities had not yet been made.
On March 20, 1947, Mr. Wilgress wrote to Mr. Molotov, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Mr. Wilgress stated that, as he was sincerely desirous that relations between Canada and the U.S.S.R. should be placed on the friendliest possible basis, he trusted that it might now be possible for the Soviet authorities to grant an exit visa to Mrs. Power.
On April 5, 1947, Mr. Wilgress, in a personal conversation with Mr. Molotov, referred to his letter of March 20 and expressed the hope that a favourable decision could bo reached before he left Moscow to take up his new post as minister to Switzerland.
In the past, permission has been given on a number of occasions to Soviet women married to British subjects to join their husbands. It is true that by a decree of the praesidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. of February 15, 1947. marriages between citizens of the U.S.S.R. and foreigners were prohibited. But this cannot affect Mrs. Power's status, as at the time of the marriage in February, 1945, Soviet women were free to marry foreigners.
The Canadian government therefore considers the continued postponement of the grant of an exit visa to Mrs. Power an incomprehensible action on the part of a friendly state. There is no doubt that the marriage was entered into in good faith by both parties, that there is mutual affection, that Mr. Power is able to take good care of his wife, and that if Mre. Power were permitted to come to Canada she would, as a Canadian citizen, reflect credit both on the country of her adoption and the country of her birth. Mrs. Power's application for a Soviet exit visa is the only outstanding application for the wife of a Canadian. The Canadian government sincerely trusts that, in the interests of friendly relations between our two countries, the Soviet authorities will, without further 83166-299*
delay, grant Mrs. Power an exit visa permitting her to be reunited with her husband in Canada.



EMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: I am not sure whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs received the notice I sent him of the question I am about to ask. Can he make a statement today, or within a day or two, about the emigration of a large number of Canadian Mennonites to Paraguay and the foreshadowed emigration of a large number, some thousands, of Hutterites to the same country?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I will endeavour to obtain all the information that is available in the departments in connection with the matter and give the hon. member an answer.



QUESTION OF SHIPMENT TO BRITAIN-POSITION OF TREE FRUITS INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Nearly a week ago I directed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce with respect to the situation which is developing in the marketing of Canadian apples. The question was raised again two days ago. The minister indicated that he was not sure whether it fell within the jurisdiction of his department, and I understood that he undertook to bring it to the attention of his colleagues and that he would make a [DOT] statement. May I ask today that the Prime Minister give consideration to that matter. It is simply this. A statement has been issued that the British government will not this year be buying Canadian apples as in the past, and it leaves a serious situation facing the fruit growers. My question was: Has the government considered the matter yet, and has it any statement to make with regard to that problem?
Right Hon, W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):	There is no statement to
make at the moment, but I hope to have some minister reply to my hon. friend in the course of the next week.
Old Age Pensions



MOVEMENT FROM LAKEHEAD TO MONTREAL- SHIPS AWAITING CARGOES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. KING HAZEN (St. John-Albert):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) or, in his absence, to some other minister of the crown. Is the amount of grain in the port of Montreal from the lakehead inadequate to supply cargoes to a large number of ships waiting there to load grain? If so, has any action been taken to remedy this situation?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: As acting minister I will make inquiries, but the facts speak for themselves. There are ships waiting for grain. Every effort is being made to expedite the movement of grain from the lakehead to Montreal.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, June 25, consideration in committee of Bill No. 339, to amend the Old Age Pensions Act-Mr. Martin-Mr. Macdonald1 (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions.
Thomas Langton Church: Would it not be possible now, in view of the fact that for two years, a study has been made of the question by a select committee on Indians and Eskimos, to allow the various acts to be amended in order to give the Indians and Eskimos a pension under this statute notwithstanding the Indian Act?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps we could deal with that when we come to section 8, which is the relevant section of the bill.


Thomas Langton Church: I understand that these people are not citizens. My point was whether it would be advisable now, and might effect an economy, if they were declared to be citizens in order to qualify under this act and for treatment in hospitals, and so on. Otherwise there is little hope that anything will be done this session. Will the minister consider it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Mr. LOW:: I should like to say just a word about the means test part of the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Could we not deal with that when we come to the relevant section?


Solon Earl Low: I was going to ask the minister where he would prefer to have me say something about it. It does not matter to me whether it is now or later.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That would come under section 4, which deals with the income limits.


Solon Earl Low: As long as it is understood that I shall have a chance to say something about it, that is all right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Quite.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A substantial revision of the regulations under the old act was recently carried out. Is it proposed that there shall be a revision of these regulations under the new act?


Paul Joseph James Martin: May we deal with that when we come to section 9? The answer is yes, but that comes under section 9 of the bill.


Thomas Langton Church: The only section I can see in the bill which deals with definitions is section 1; and the explanatory notes explain what the definitions are. Unless my point is raised on section 1, to give Indians and Eskimos something, it is out of order on the other sections. The government has been studying this question for two years. Surely these people are citizens and should be given citizens' rights. They were here two hundred years before the French and the English.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That could be dealt with under section 5 (8A-a (iv)).


Thomas Langton Church: There is no appropriate section other than section 1.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Yes, there is.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: When was the last occasion on which there was a complete revision of these regulations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Last November. They were tabled in this house about a month ago.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it the intention to make any further changes in those regulations during the next year?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We shall have to see, in the light of our experience.


John George Diefenbaker: What changes are contemplated?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We shall see.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Chairman-


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I point out to my hon. friend that it cOmes under section 9. Section 9 deals with the regulations. Section 1 deals only with definitions.

Old Age Pensions


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate ail
that. Of course, Mr. Chairman, we are not going to be told where we shall ask questions. The minister has assumed quite an attitude on this matter, and we are not going to have it. We shall ask questions where questions may properly be asked.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister's say-so is not going to determine the matter. My attitude towards the minister is always that of showing to him the same consideration that he shows to me.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Quite.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister
considered changing any of the regulations in order to bring them into conformity with the changes which are being made by these amendments? I can well realize that changes will have to be made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Some changes.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, and they will
be made even before the light of experience determines the course to be followed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Some changes.


John George Diefenbaker: They will be
determined now. The changes which will be made by the amendments will require changed regulations. Regulations have sometimes been passed which emasculated the statute under which they were made. The statute has virtually been altered to meet the feelings of those charged with its administration.


Mr. JACKMAN:: And altered beyond
recognition.


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. member for Rosedale says, very often the regulations are such that in operation the statute cannot be recognized as the one passed by the house. I should like the minister to indicate what changes are to be made in the regulations in order to bring them into conformity with the amendments which are now before the committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member is quite
right; I cannot tell him when he may speak and when he may not. But as the minister responsible for the bill I think I must point out to you, Mr. Chairman, when a particular section justifies a particular discussion.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: We ourselves are capable of doing that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When we come to section 9 of the bill-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Section 8. I am sorry
to have to correct the minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Surely the two hon. gentlemen can get together.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right. Section 8
is the place. At this stage I would point out to the hon. member that these regulations are not made by this government. They are made by the federal authority in conjunction with the provincial authorities. There cannot be regulations made by us alone; the regulations are made by us and the provinces. I will answer the question fully when we come to what I think is the relevant section, unless, Mr. Chairman, you declare otherwise.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I want to say a word about these regulations, though some of the questions I have in mind have been answered already by the minister. In regard to the authorities who are going to make these regulations-


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. The minister has suggested that this discussion might take place more appropriately under section 8, which deals directly with the regulations. May I read section 8, which will be the new section 19:
The governor in council may make regulations, not inconsistent with this act, for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this act, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing may make regulations providing for
It seems to me that is the appropriate section for a discussion of the regulations, and I hope hon. members will agree.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have every consideration for your explanation, Mr. Chairman, but you will see that section 8 says the governor in council may make regulations not inconsistent with this act, and that is the very thing I want to refer to. A moment ago the minister indicated that these regulations would be made in conjunction with the provinces. I do not intend to go into section 8 in detail, but that section provides that the governor in council shall make the regulations, not the provinces. When we come to section 1-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, my hon. friend is now arguing the matter of the regulations; and with great respect, Mr. Chairman, I suggest you should rule whether this discussion is germane to section 1, the interpretation section, or whether it should await section 8. I submit with great respect that this discussion is out of order, and that we should wait until we reach section 8.


William Ross Macdonald: It does occur to me that the committee should be able to agree on a question like this without the chairman having to make a ruling. There is provision for a discussion such as the hon. member for
Old Age Pensions

Bow River was carrying on, under section 8. No doubt that is the appropriate section under which to discuss the question he was bringing before the committee. I should think we would make more headway if we proceeded strictly according to the rule. I do not want to be too strict; J try not to be, but on a question like this 1 should hope there would oe cooperation between all hon. members and the chairman.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think you have been very lenient, Mr. Chairman, and I want to express my thanks; but in this section it says "regulations under this act". I am not trying to discuss what the regulations are going to be or should be; I will take for granted what the minister said about the regulations being made in conjunction with the proviiices, though I was doubtful on that point- when I read section 8. I want to know this. If the government is going to make the regulations, as has been the case in the past, the provinces will be forced to abide by the regulations established by this government under order in council before they ever see those regulations, which makes it almost impossible for the provinces to administer this act at all fairly outside the provisions of the regulations which this bill would impose upon them. Of course that brings in the means test. I do not intend to discuss that now', since we are going to take it up in detail when the proper section comes along, but I do object to these regulations being made by the governor in council.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member said your rulings were lenient, Mr. Chairman, and I am not going to disagree with that remark. But this is the first time any minister has taken the stand that this matter of regulations should not be discussed under the definitions section. I do not know whether the minister has his questions and answers so arranged that he could not answer those questions now. Can he only answer them when we come to the particular section? After all, when we pass-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I'll take care of myself; you take care of yourself.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I want to tell my hon. friend that until yesterday I thought he was an heir apparent, but now he looks to me like an heir self-apparent. I want to get an answer from my hon. friend. Does he want to answer this question now, or can he not answer it now?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend knows the rules better than I do. They are as stated by the chairman. When we come to section 8, I shall be pleased to answer any question that
[The Chairman.]	.
may occur to my hon. friend. I might point out, in regard to the regulations referred to in this section, under the old act wherever "regulation" appeared it read, "regulation means a regulation made under this act." This wording was to be found in the body of the sections. The law officers who helped draft this bill suggested that instead of repeating "regulation means a regulation made under this act" wherever these words appeared, we should simply define the word in the interpretation section, by saying, " 'regulation' means a regulation made under this act." To satisfy the law officers, this was put in the interpretation section in paragraph (h).


Heber Harold Hatfield: Is there to be any change in the regulation concerning people who live in this country all their lives and who happen to move over to the United States or to some other country for a year or two before becoming seventy years of age, thereby losing a number of years when they return before they can obtain the pension?


William Ross Macdonald: Would the hon. member allow that question to stand also? The minister will take a note of it and give the answer on section 8.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall be very glad to do that.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Section 8 says the
governor in council may make regulations. A number of regulations have been changed already, in advance of what may be done under section 8. I should like the minister to explain the negotiations that took place in regard to the regulations which already have been changed; and I am not asking anything about what may be done under the new section.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When we come to section 8, I shall be glad to give that information.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: That has nothing to do with section 8.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, it has.


William Ross Macdonald: That question also
should be answered under section 8, and I would ask the minister to take note of it.


Charles Edward Johnston: Just so that there will be no misunderstanding in regard to section 1, paragraph (h), the minister has stated that these regulations will be made in conjunction and cooperation with the provinces. I suggest to him that this definition be changed to read something like this-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Could we not wait for the
proper section?

Old Age Pensions


Charles Edward Johnston: This has to do with section 1.	.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If we are going to roam all over the lot we cannot have an orderly debate.
I shall be glad to answer that question when we come to the section which empowers the governor in council to make the regulations.


Charles Edward Johnston: But it is the interpretation section that I want to amend; that is just my point. I would like to see this section amended in connection with the interpretation of the word "regulation". I think this is the time that should be done, without waiting for section 8, because then we could not revert to section 1. In the light of what the minister has said I think the section should read something like this: "'regulation' means a regulation made in conjunction and cooperation with the provinces." Then there would be no confusion at all in the definition. I suggest to the minister in all seriousness that this change should be made if he is sincere in his intention that these regulations are to be made in conjunction with the provinces.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I see what my hon. friend has in mind. May I suggest there is another way of doing that, and I shall refer to it in a moment. It is covered by the act. The only purpose of putting in the interpretation section the words "a regulation means a regulation made under this act" is to avoid, as I explained to the hon. member for Lake Centre, a repetition throughout the various sections of the words, "regulation means a regulation made under this act." Covering the point my hon. friend has in mind I would call his attention to section 19 (2) of the present act which provides:
No regulation by reference to which any agreement with a province has been made shall be altered except with the consent of such province or in accordance with the provisions of the regulations to which it has agreed.


Charles Edward Johnston: That refers only to a regulation made in conjunction with a province; it does not refer to a general regulation. There may be a regulation made in conjunction with a province that could be changed only, as the minister says, by agreement of that province, but that does not alter the definition of "regulation."


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, I have my own views as to what would be the best and proper procedure at this point, but I shall not add fuel to the fire by stating my opinion. I suggest that if we cannot agree as to what to do with section 1 it would be perhaps better to allow it to stand; then by
the time we have gone through the other sections we shall have taken care of these points.
Section stands.
On section 2-Agreement with province re quarterly payments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to refer to paragraph (b) of this section in so far as it amends section 3, subsection 1 of the act. I should like to say a word or two to the minister and invite his comments. It is a little difficult to discuss a section like this when one does not agree with the basic position taken. When I say that, I have in mind the difference -of opinion between us. The minister feels that old age pensions should be a joint dominion-provincial responsibility, and I feel that it should be a one hundred per cent federal responsibility. In that connection I support the position taken by the Prime Minister in 1931, particularly on June 2. However, the minister has taken his stand on that and that seems to be the government's position so I shall not argue it. I want to speak, so far as I can, within the terms that are set forth here.
This clause (b) gives to the provinces the right to specify two things: first, the maximum pension and, second, the amount of other income to be allowed to the pensioner up to a maximum. Of course in both cases there is a ceiling created by the effect of section 8 of S50 a month to the single old age pensioner. My quarrel with this section, looking at it on the government's own terms, is, first, that it does not specify a minimum pension, and, second, that the $50 ceiling has the effect of a specific maximum. It seems to me that that is laying a basis for varying pensions, both as to the amount and as to the extent of the means test, across the country. It does seem to me that if the government is going to do it through a joint dominion-provincial responsibility, an effort should be made to achieve some uniformity in the plan. I feel that this section should contain a minimum for the pension, which it does not, and that it should be possible for a province which wants to raise the pension to as high as $40 or S50 a month to lead up to that by permitting other allowable income.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We could do nothing here which would in any way restrict the power of the provinces, and I know that on reflection my hon. friend would not agree to any suggestion of that sort. While it does not make it right, the provision in this bill is a continuation of the provision in the old act. I am just adding that ty way of digression from
Old Age Pensions

the main point. We could not specify what a province must do. I suggest to my hon. friend that I am quite satisfied that no province will lower what it is already paying.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it not true that when the Old Age Pensions Act was passed in 1927 -the one that stuck; the one that got by the Senate-the provinces had to take it, all or nothing? There was not a sliding scale in the original act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, that is not so; there was a maximum pension.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was it possible for a province to come in on a basis of less than $20 per month?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I am advised not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is my point. We are getting together now on what we were calling each other names about on seeond reading.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was enabling legislation, quite different.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit that what we have here is enabling legislation. The previous act provided that the government would pay 50 per cent of the amounts the provinces paid out, while this provides that the federal government will pay 75 per cent of the amounts.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In any event no one could justify restricting the provinces even if it were the right thing to do. We would have no power to do it. We would be charged with trying to centralize everything here in Ottawa. I am sure my hon. friend will see the merit of that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The fact of the matter is that in this parliament we represent Canadians from all the nine provinces and it is our duty to try to protect the rights of Canadian citizens everywhere. I know the minister keeps talking about provincial responsibility in connection with this matter as though it were a social service question, but I see it rather as a matter of right. The thing which I do not like about this subclause is that it makes it possible for a province like-'I shall have to name provinces in order to state my point, but in doing so I am not casting any reflections-Quebec or New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island to leave their pensions right where they are, at $25 a month.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Prince Edward Island has already announced what it is going to do.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That gives your party and province a chance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am afraid my hon.
friend to my right is playing into the hands of the minister in this game of trying to put responsibility upon the provinces and trying to force them to measure up to what is declared to be their responsibility. The interest which we have to protect is that of Canadian citizens from coast to coast, and we are not protecting it by any plan which seeks to jockey various provinces, or, if you like, the parties in the various provinces to compete with each other as to what shall be done. As much as possible there should be laid down by this federal parliament at least a minimum. That was the whole meat of the discussion which arose out of the Rowell-Sirois commission report.	That was the
objective of this government as laid down in the proposals made to the dominion-provincial conference, and I do feel that we should press along that line.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is hard for anyone
sitting in this house to believe that section 2 of this bill could have been written by the same government which	brought down
proposals to the dominion-provincial conference two years ago, because there is just nothing in common between the two. It will be remembered that the essence of those proposals was that the dominion would assume one hundred per cent responsibility for the payment of a pension without a means test to every person in Canada seventy years of age and over. There were no strings attached; there was no means test, there was no limitation. The dominion was to assume full responsibility and there were no restrictions. We now have a section before us which will continue the means test and a number of other potential restrictions. The government reserves to itself the right to enter into agreements with the provinces specifying the maximum pension which the provinces may pay toward which they will receive contribution from the dominion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It leaves it to the
province to specify the maximum.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Under this section the
dominion is reserving the right to be a party to the agreement. It is making it that much more difficult for the provinces to assume the responsibility which the dominion is now trying to cast upon them.
My first and most serious criticism of this bill is that the dominion government is deliberately trying to walk out from under the responsibility that properly rests upon the dominion in respect of pensions to persons seventy years of age and over, a responsibility acknowledged, as I have said before, by

Old Age Pensions
parliament, and a responsibility which this government proclaimed to all Canada two years ago and since that it was prepared to assume. Now we have a complete reversal of that position and we see the dominion entering into agreements with the provinces and tying the hands of the provinces, so that if the provinces want to make changes they have to enter into new agreements with the dominion government within the scope of the pension of S30 a month to which the dominion contributes 75 per cent.
Under paragraph (b) of this section provision is made for inserting in the agreement stipulations in regard to the total of income which may be received by a pensioner. That raises directly the point which I sought to make the other day, and it is this. That strict limitation imposed by the dominion in this act and in the agreements which will be made under it as to the total which a pensioner may receive by way of allowable income is a brake placed by the dominion upon the provinces in the matter of making contributions. It is idle for the minister to say that the provinces can pay as much as they like. That is not so, because if the pensioner has any earned income at all, and if the combined total of dominion pension of $30 and the provincial supplement and the earned income amounts to over $600 a year, where does the reduction take place? Not in the provincial supplement. It comes off the $30 a month to which the dominion is contributing. Therefore you are going to discourage the pensioner from earning income and the province from contributing. It is of no use for the minister to shake his head. He has been shaking his head and wagging his tongue and interrupting everybody throughout this debate, and members have learned by this time to pay little or no attention to what he says. What I am saying, without the slightest fear of contradiction from the minister or from anybody to your right, Mr. Chairman, is that this set-up discourages any pensioner from seeking to earn income on his own behalf, and it discourages the province from contributing supplements, because if the effect of the two combined, together with the pension of $30, is to give the pensioner a total income of over $600 a year, the reduction does not come off the provincial supplement but off the pension to which the dominion is contributing. What encouragement is there in that for the provinces to try to eke out an insufficient pension by granting a supplement? Here is the minister throwing responsibility on the provinces and trying to make a good fellow of himself by raising the total of pension and raising the total of allowable income. But the further you look into it 83166-300
the more hollow' the whole scheme appears, the bigger the sham it is shown to be. For the minister to picture this as a measure of social reform just shows how far he has failed to appreciate even the elementary significance of social reform.


Mr. GRANT:: Telephone Drew.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not know whether the hon. member who interrupted is capable of carrying on a conversation on the telephone or not. Sometimes I rather doubt it. Now that he has raised that question, and I am obliged for his interruption because I am happy to deal with this question. I say that for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to take any credit to himself-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. If the hon. member is referring to a telephone conversation which the minister mentioned yesterday, the minister withdrew his statement and further discussion on it should not take place.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was referring to the telephone conversation just mentioned in an interruption by the hon. member opposite from Prince Edward Island.


William Ross Macdonald: I do not think he made any reference to a telephone conversation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. Everybody knows that he was trying to bring in by inference the remark made yesterday by the minister.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. gentleman explained his position to the house this afternoon, and I think all hon. members know that he did not telephone the premier.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It may be a matter of opinion. The question has been raised again this afternoon by the interjection of the hon. member opposite. I want to say this. Referring to what the minister said yesterday, his untruthful assertion-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. As I said before, the minister withdrew his statement, and the hon. member should not now refer to it as an untruthful statement. His statement was incorrect and the minister admitted it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was asked a moment ago by the hon. member who interrupted why I did not go and telephone the premier of Ontario.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member was not asked a question. There was some interruption about a telephone conversation. I do not think this should, go on indefinitely.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not start it. It was the hon. member opposite. Not only were there no telephone conversations of the kind



Old Age Pensions
referred to but there is no occasion for any, because the premier to whom the hon. member referred is quite capable of conducting his affairs and the affaire of the province of Ontario, and if the hon. member who interrupted or any other hon. member opposite thinks that the announcement of the premier of Ontario with respect to increasing the old age pension in Ontario reflects any credit on this government he is hopelessly deluding himself. How could any province take steps except on an interim basis until they knew what this government was going to do? For five months, ever since this session opened, this government has been shouting from the housetops that it was going to increase the old age pension. After five months of keeping everybody in suspense, during which the old age pensioners have been looking for justice, the government brings down this measure. Everybody by this time must know that the dominion government has hopelessly failed to carry out its promise. It is trying to shirk its responsibility. The provinces know now what the dominion government is going to do and how pitifully inadequate it is. They will have to do what the dominion government has failed to do, and what it promised to do, and what it has now shown that it does not intend to do.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I would ask the minister why the average in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island was kept down to S14< or $15 a month while the average in British Columbia and some other provinces was $18 and $19 a month.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think my hon. friend has the older figures. I can now give him the average figures. In 1947 Alberta was $24.11; British Columbia, $24.22; Manitoba, $24.53; New Brunswick, $22.68; Nova Scotia, $22.76; Ontario, $24.52-


Heber Harold Hatfield: In a great many years before 1944 the average in New Brunswick was around $14 and British Columbia around $18 or $19. Were there different regulations for the different provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I should think so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I continue with the figures? Prince Edward Island, $19.36; Quebec, $24.01.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is that the average?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. Saskatchewan, S24.37; Northwest Territories, $24.69.


Charles Edward Johnston: I wish to refer to paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of section 3. The paragraph reads:

'Subject to sections eight and eight A of this act, in every agreement made pursuant to this subsection the province shall specify the maximum pension to be paid by the province and shall provide for the reduction of such maximum pension by the amount of any income received by a pensioner in excess of an amount of income to be specified in such agreement.
I fear, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to run into the same difficulty when this act comes into operation as we had a few years ago when several provinces endeavoured to raise the pension which was then stipulated at $20 a month. It will be recalled that some of the provinces at that time were desirous of increasing the pension from $20 to $25. A discussion arose between the provinces and the federal government as to whether or not these provinces would be permitted to increase the pension under the regulations laid down by the federal government. Some provinces did increase the pension regardless of that, and a battle ensued on whether these pensions would be reduced by the federal government. The federal government did accede to the desire and allowed the pension to go up to $25 a month. That was not done according to the regulations but by agreement with the federal government, and the provinces did increase their pension. Immediately some of the provinces raised the amount of pension to $30 because they realized that with the increased cost of living the pensioners could not exist on the amount of pension then paid; but again they were subject to the regulations and the pensioner was put in the position where at least the share of his pension which was being paid by the federal government would be reduced according to the amount that it was increased by the province.
Today we have the situation that a province may set the maximum pension paid; so long as that maximum is less than the $30 a month the federal government will pay seventy-five per cent of it. But the moment that the provinces desire to go above the total income of $50, including the pension and the earned income, the federal government will again cut their share of the contribution by the amount that the total exceeds the pension plus the income. That will put the pensioners in exactly the position that they were in years ago. In fact it prohibits any province from giving more than $50 a month. When I say $50 a month I mean $30 contributed by the province and the federal government plus the income which the pensioner is allowed, which makes a total of $50 a month. The moment that a province desires to give the pensioner another $5 the federal government can apply the regulations again and their share of the

Old Age Pensions
seventy-five per cent of the $30 will be reduced accordingly. If, a province recognizes the fact that because of the increased cost of living, which, is soaring day after day, an old age pensioner cannot have a decent standard of living on the amount alloted, and if it desires to raise that amount, then the federal government can invoke a section of the act-not a regulation, because it will now be in the act- and reduce the amount of their contribution to the province. We should try to get away from the situation which faced the provinces a few years ago under the old regulations. I suggest to the minister that they permit the province at least-because it will not cost the federal government any more; it will be nothing out of the federal government's pocket -to pay as large a pension as they desire without the federal government reducing its seventy-five per cent of the $30. That would not be asking the federal government to do anything; it would not be losing anything, but the provinces could increase the pension to the amount they desired.


Mr. REID:: A few minutes ago the minister gave the amounts paid in the various provinces. I am not going to raise the question of one province against another, but I have always wondered, when averages were given, whether it was really a fair picture that was being given to the House of Commons and to the people of the country. It will be seen that one province may have a high average and yet a greater proportion of its people may be getting less money. Let us take the hypothetical case of ten persons getting $10 a month and five persons getting $20 a month. The average of that would be a little over $13. If you reverse the figures and. have five people getting $10 a month and ten people getting $20 the average would be $16.50. When average figures have been given I have always wondered whether we were getting the time picture as to the number of people who were getting the higher amount. I have always claimed that British Columbia has the higher number getting the higher pension. I may be wrong. I shall be interested to see a break-down. I am going to ask the minister now if what I have said is correct.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has referred to a very important point. British Columbia, of course, is very high in amount.


Thomas Reid: There is the fact. The minister admits that the averages are not a true guide at all, and we are not getting the real picture before the people.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I should like to ask the minister for an explanation of how paragraph 83166-3001
(b) of section 3 works. For example, if a pensioner has independent means of two or three hundred dollars, how does that affect the contributions of the province? Let us take Ontario as an example and the contribution of the dominion, because some of the arguments we have had recently-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the $300 income or assets?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Income. Let us make the income a smaller figure. Let us take $100 of outside actual income. How does that affect the payments of Ontario and the dominion under the new $40 payment of Ontario?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It does not affect it at all.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Let us make the amount a little larger, because $100 would not affect it. Three hundred dollars would, because the maximum is $480 a year. If the amount of outside income is $200 will the minister explain to the committee exactly how the provincial contribution is cut down by reason of the outside income, and how the federal contribution is cut down for the same reason?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is cut down in the ratio of 75 per cent and 25 per cent. The federal contribution is 75 per cent of the basic pension. In other words a single person under * the amending bill could receive a pension of $360 plus $240. That is to say the individual would have a pension together with the amount of the maximum allowable outside income which total would be $600. That, of course, would differ in the case of married persons and would differ again in the case of married persons married to blind persons, but that comes under section 4.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Let us keep it to the single person. Under the contributions before the increase the province paid 33 per cent in Ontario and the dominion 66 per cent. If there was an overage because of independent income, did the provinces get a remission of 33 per cent of the cost and the dominion 66 per cent? Because these percentages have now changed since the minister's action and the action of the premier of Ontario, so that Ontario pays 43-75 per cent of the $40 and the dominion only 56-25. The varying contributions are entirely different from what they were.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I could not follow that.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: May I please go on with this?-because it is vital to an understanding of what happens. Previously the province paid 33 per cent of the contribution in Ontario-


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; it was 25 per cent.

Old Age Pensions


George Alexander Cruickshank: That did not include telephone calls.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The monthly payment in Ontario was not $25, but $28.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The $3 is a supplement, and that $3 is exempt in the calculation of income.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That is what I am getting at. Is the $10 now paid in Ontario as a supplement apart from any calculation as to how much shall come back because of outside income?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It all depends on whether Ontario proposes to pay the extra $10 as part of its pension under the agreement, or as a supplement, and from the announcement they made I am not sure what their intention in that regard is.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: You do not know what this agreement means, then.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have to sign an agreement pursuant to this act after we deal with it here.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It makes a great difference whether or not the dominion recognizes the $10 supplement as part of the total pension and the province entitled to 43-75 per cent of any retractable amount they would get because of outside income. I think the minister understands the question well.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hate to anticipate, but if the hon. member will look at section 16(c) of the regulations he will see what I mean. We shall have to wait until that is reached.


Mr. SHAW:: A moment ago the member for Bow River made reference to supplementary payments made by the provinces during the past year and the difficulties which those provinces encountered in securing the permission of the federal government not to regard those supplementary payments as income. I concur wholly in the observations of the hon. member and I would ask the minister why the federal government is not prepared at the present time to indicate that, should a province desire to make supplementary payments, such supplementary payments, should they bring the maximum income above that contemplated in the act, will not be penalized in consequence. The minister has stated time and again that this is a provincial responsibility. I suggest to him that if that is so he declare in the house now and take appropriate action with respect to amending this bill to guarantee that, should the province make a supplementary payment bringing the total above $600 in ease of a single man. the federal contribution will not be reduced.

The member for New Westminster criticized the statistics setting forth average payments by the provinces. I agree with him for a second reason. These averages ignore the fact that some provinces are today granting hospital, medical, dental and other services completely free of cost to the recipients of old age pensions. I think we can ignore the averages if we wish to see the problem in its true light. Will the minister comment on that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will deal first with my hon. friend's question, which is also the point raised by the hon. member for Rosedale. New regulation 16 (c) reads:
In determining the income of any pensioner for the purpose of the act, the pension authority shall take into account the amount or value of all income and contributions, whether in cash or in kind, received by the pensioner, other than
(c) cost of living allowances or supplemental allowances paid by any province to persons in receipt of pensions under the act.
Mr. MaoINNIS: I was wondering whether we would not make better progress if we allowed sections 2 and 3 to stand and dealt with section 4, which seems to be the operative section of the act. We could take sections 4 and 5. If we could dispose of 4 and 5 I think the provisions of the other sections would- fall into place. As we are proceeding now, we are bringing in all kinds of unrelated matters. I offer this as a suggestion that might make for progress.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the suggestion is worth nothing. Perhaps we could pass section 3, which is purely formal, and, as the hon. member suggests, allow section 2 to stand.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I am very much interested in the question I asked the minister. I asked him if he had the regulations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Did hot my hon. friend hear me read the regulation a moment ago? I have not an extra copy.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Does the minister know whether the $40 paid by Ontario will be in the form of $30 plus an allowance or whether it will be in the form of pension entirely?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know whether it will be by way of an addition to the pension, as pension, or a supplement. If it is a supplement it comes within 16(c), which I have read.


Charles Edward Johnston: Would that include
medical services which the provinces supply?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not regarded as income. The section is explicit, "in cash or in kind received by the pensioner."

Old Age Pensions


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, there are a few remarks I should like to make with regard to the blind. We have had a great deal of difficulty in our city where we have a splendid institute for the blind and also have to have a tag day. Could they not be allowed an attendant?


William Ross Macdonald: Order. Do I understand that section 2 stands?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Yes.
Section 2 stands.
On section 3

Payments to provinces on certificate of minister.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the section carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I want to deal with the point raised by the minister regarding regulation 16(c).


William Ross Macdonald: May we be clear on procedure? Section 2 stands. Shall section 3 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Amount of dominion contribution and persons pensionable.
Donald Methuen Fleming: As the act stood prior to the introduction of the bill, undoubtedly 16(c) was clear in providing that if the province did make any supplementary payment it was not to be computed as part of income when the pensioner was under the limitations then existing of a total income of $425 a year. I suggest to the minister that his argument does not apply in the terms of the bill. If he is simply relying on regulation 16(c) to preserve the right of a pensioner to receive his provincial supplement, whatever that may be, without that being applied against his permissible income of S600 a year, I suggest that he is opening the way-Mr. Chairman, I should like to have the minister's attention, if possible-to an interpretation of the act and the regulations which will have the very opposite result. The act does not say what the minister is saying. The act talks about deductions in case of the pension. There is no definition in the act, and we have not anything in this act to provide that the terms of regulation 16(c) shall be imported into the new bill. The minister has indicated, I take it, an intention that regulation 16(c) shall be deemed to apply to the permissible income under the new bill. I am pointing out that at the present time the bill does not make any such provision. I say that the two things are in contradiction. If the minister wants regulation 16(c) to be applied, I suggest that the terms of these sections must be amended accordingly. There should be a clear provision that these provincial supplements are not to be counted in the limit of allowable income.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is the principal section of the bill, except for section 6, which makes similar arrangements for the blind. One of the first provisions of this section is for a pension of $30 monthly, so far as the federal government's contribution to the pension is concerned. As the minister knows, the inadequacy of S30 a month has been one of the main questions under discussion since this debate started. The feeling of many of us is that the amount should be higher, not by calling upon the province to supplement it, but by making available a larger amount from the federal treasury.
It is my intention, Mr. Chairman, to do something which I know is rather unusual in the proceedings of the committee of the whole, but it arises out of the unusual way in which this measure was first presented to the house. I wish to make clear at the outset what I intend to do, and then get ready to answer the arguments against it. I propose to move that section 4 be amended by deleting the words "thirty dollars" from line 20, and substituting therefor the words "fifty dollars".


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It cannot be done.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not pay $200?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear immediate interjections from the opposite side to the effect that it cannot be done. I suggest that hon. members should not treat this lightly. The content of my amendment is a serious matter, as is my contention with regard to the rules of the house. I am not at all surprised that hon. members immediately think I am trying to do something which is against the rules. But I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to follow me as I draw your attention to citations in Beauchesne, third edition. I firmly believe that because of the wording of the resolution which preceded the bill, this committee is in the unusual position of having the right to increase the amount of money provided in this section.
The usual procedure with respect to a resolution preceding a bill is that it shall state the maximum amount of money to be provided by the bill. The rules state that care should be taken to see that this is done. As one looks over past history he finds that it has been done in the vast majority of cases. In fact I cannot find an instance in which it has not been done, except this particular one. For example, when old age pensions were first introduced in 1926 by Hon. J. H. King, who was then acting minister of labour, the
Old Age Pensions

resolution preceding the bill, as found in Hansard for March 26, 1926, at page 1937, gave the full details of the old age pension plan and stipulated the maximum amount. Similarly, when family allowances were introduced in this house on June 22, 1944, the resolution preceding the bill, to be found at page 4052 of Hansard of that year, gave all the details, including the maximum amounts to be paid to children of various ages. The same is true of the War Service Grants Act of 1944. The same is true of other money bills which we have had before us this session In all cases except this one, the resolution preceding the bill stipulated the maximum amount of money which was to be provided under that bill. But in this case the Minister of National Health and Welfare, when he introduced the resolution which was passed on June 17, as recorded at page 4233 of Hansard, worded that resolution as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Pensions Act which will enlarge the scope of the act by providing increases in the pension payable and the income allowable to pensioners and by modifying certain of the eligibility requirements for pension.
Using language which you will recognize in Beauchesne in a moment, I draw your attention, sir, to the fact that that resolution was framed in general terms and1 did not specify a maximum amount. If you, Mr. Chairman, and hon. members will turn to Beauchesne, third edition, pages 168 and 169, you will find citation 439. I will not read the whole of it because the first part is introductory. The last two sentences are the ones which count. The second last sentence is the one with which we are all familiar. It reads:
The constitutional principle which vests in the crown the sole responsibility of incurring national expenditure forbids an increase by the Commons of a sum demanded on behalf of the crown for the service of the state.
But note the next sentence:
This principle, however, is apparently disregarded when the recommendation of the crown is given to a resolution empowering the expenditure of public money which, framed in general terms, places no limitation on the amount of expenditure to be authorized by the resolution.
That is what we have in this case.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The resolution introduced by the minister, although it was stated to have the royal recommendation, did not state the maximum amount, as did all these other resolutions I have referred to. You will find in another citation, for example No. 440 on the same page, these words, which are the crux of the citation.

Amendments will only be in order if they fall within the terms of the resolution.
I submit that because of the way this resolution wa,s introduced, framed in general terms, with no maximum placed upon it, my amendment is in order because it is within the terms of the resolution that had the royal recommendation. Lest anyone think I have tried to read too much into the citations I have already drawn to your attention, I ask that you turn to citation 445 on the next page. Here it is, in concrete language:
It may happen that the resolution

That is the resolution preceding the bill, which the minister introduced-
-sanctions some expenditure without fixing the maximum amount to be spent. '
That describes this resolution exactly.
If, for instance, the resolution recommends that adequate salaries be paid a newly constituted body and the amounts of the salaries are fixed in the bill based on that resolution, the committee on the bill-
That is what we are now, the committee on a bill in which maximum amounts have been fixed, but which was preceded by a resolution framed in general terms, placing no maximum. -the committee on the bill has the right to increase those amounts, because, in doing so, it does not go beyond the scope of the royal r*com-mendation.


Mr. GOLDING:: The crown has to take that responsibility, after all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; the responsibility of the crown relates to the resolution preceding the bill, not to the bill itself. I must confess it seems to me that an error was made on the part of the government when the resolution was drafted, in that they did not follow the procedure, which incidentally they are told they should follow in one of those citations to which I referred but which I did not read in full. Part of citation 439 reads:
-care must be taken that the terms used are sufficiently wide to cover the whole of the bill which will be subsequently introduced.
This resolution did not reveal that sufficient care had been taken. One of these resolutions referred to in the various citations I have mentioned, particularly No. 445, which sanctions an expenditure without fixing a maximum, is stated in general terms; therefore the committee on the bill-it cannot be done on second reading-has the right to increase those amounts because in doing so it does not go beyond the scope of the royal recommendation.


William Henry Golding: Only by a minister of the crown.

Old Age Pensions


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be glad to listen, when I am through, if the hon. gentleman can point out where that is stated. I contend there is no rule which says only a minister of the crown can move such an amendment. Only a minister of the crown can report to the house the royal recommendation associated with the resolution. That is true; that is here, but that was done. The resolution was introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and as a privy councillor he announced the royal recommendation.
Now, Mr. Chairman, may I point out further that I am not reading things into these citations without some authority. The very citations to which I have referred already have been used as the basis for a decision taken during the course of this session. Back on Friday, May 16, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, the leader of this group, tabled a petition in this House of Commons asking among other things for an old age pension of S50 a month. On Monday, May 19, the Clerk of the House laid upon the table the forty-second report of the clerk of petitions. dealing with that very petition. According to the report of the Clerk of the House, obviously the clerk of petitions had to examine that petition closely. He found, undoubtedly, that it prayed for a grant of money; and if you will again refer to Beauchesne, this time to citation 608, which follows the rules having to do with petitions, you will find this:
The house will refuse to receive any petition that directly asks for a grant of money out of the public revenues, unless such grant has first been recommended by the crown.
I will say, by way of confession, that we would not have been completely surprised had our petition been ruled out of order by virtue of the first few words of citation 608, because as a matter of fact that petition did ask for such a grant. But the report laid on the table by the clerk, after setting out the petition, says:
Although this petition prays for an increase in old age pensions, I submit-[DOT]
This is the clerk of petitions speaking and this is the report laid on the table of the house by the Clerk of the House.
-that the governor general having already recommended that the scope of the Old Age Pensions Act be amended to increase the amounts to be paid, the constitutional rule that petitions asking for an expenditure of public money are irregular does not apply in this case.
I find that all the requirements of standing order 68 have been complied with.
There, Mr. Chairman, is an interpretation already made, laid before this house and accepted by this house, on a request for an increase in the amount of pension to 850 a
month. Despite citation 608 that petition was approved and accepted, because there was then on the order paper a resolution framed in general terms asking for an increase in the pension, which resolution had the royal recommendation. I will admit that the situation is unusual, and I am not amazed at hon. members being a bit surprised when I make such a motion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are not surprised.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I ask hon. members to take this matter seriously from two points of view, both from the standpoint of the amendment itself, which asks for an increase in the pension, and also from the standpoint of the rights of members of this house. I agree that rules should be respected and carried out, but I submit that not only the prohibitive rules but also the permissive rules should be carried out when they are there. Here are rules which clearly say that where a minister introducing a resolution preceding a money bill frames it in general terms, the committee on the bill has the right to increase the amount, because by so doing it does not go beyond the scope of the royal recommendation. So I express my thanks to the minister in that, whether by design or inadvertently, he introduced the motion in the terms that were used. I thank him for that, because it now gives this parliament the right in committee, where no question of the life of the government is at stake, to do something I know parliament wants to do for the old people of this country. Acceptance of my amendment does not mean the government is rejected. This does not go against anything the government does not want to do. The government wants to increase the old age pension; it obtained the royal recommendation to raise the amount, and left it in general terms; and in so doing, in effect they left it up to the committee on the bill to decide what that amount should be. So as I have already indicated, Mr. Chairman, I move:
That section 4 be amended by deleting the words "thirty dollars" from line 20 and substituting in lieu thereof the words "fifty dollars."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made a very clever political speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, Mr. Chairman, unless the minister means by that the essence of statesmanship I suggest that it should be withdrawn.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is nothing to be withdrawn in that statement because it is quite parliamentary. I am going to prove to my hon. friend and to this committee that while his arguments have been speciously
Old Age Pensions

clever, they are atrociously wrong. The amount fixed in a bill for expenditure cannot be increased by the house. If the amount is not mentioned in the resolution, it may be increased-this is the main part of what my hon. friend said-when the resolution is in committee of the whole, but after the resolution has been reported, if the amount is fixed in the bill neither the house nor the committee have the right to move an increase.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is your authority?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am just giving the simple rules of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister must quote the citation.


Thomas Reid: This is not surprising; they knew this would arise.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Give your authority.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The resolution which preceded the introduction of Bill No. 339 states:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Pensions Act which will enlarge the scape of the act-
As my hon. friend stated in his remarks.


Charles Edward Johnston: What are you reading from?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am reading my own opinion-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: -which is far more intelligent than you could ever conceive.
-by providing increases in the pension payable and the income allowable to pensioners-
As was stated so fairly by my hon. friend.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is your authority?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The committee of the whole 'has considered that resolution and has adopted it without fixing any figure for increases. Let the committee understand that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It did not fix any
maximum either.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are now considering a bill which provides that the amount to be contributed will not exceed-let the committee listen to this-"seventy-five per centum of thirty dollars monthly or of the amount paid by such province monthly, whichever is the lesser, for pension to each such person". That is the bill before the committee at the present time; it is not the resolution, but the bill.


Charles Edward Johnston: I suggest to the minister that those are Mackenzie's rules and not
Beauchesne's.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I suggest to my hon.
friend that he stop yapping.


An hon. MEMBER:: You can't take it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can take more than you can take any time or anywhere, either inside or outside this house. No amendment increasing that amount can now be moved. If any hon. member thought that the amount ought to be determined he should have done that when the resolution was before the committee. It is too late now to make any change in the amount specified in the bill. In my opinion the amendment is completely out of order. In conclusion I read section 4 of the bill, in which you will find the following clause:
Pursuant to an agreement made with a province under section three of this act, the government of Canada will contribute in respect of each person in receipt of pension from such province an amount not to exceed 75 per centum of $30 monthly or of the amount paid by such province monthly, whichever is the lesser, for pension to each such person.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister has not
stated a single authority to back up his case.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I want to tell my hon. friend that I am quoting the proper rules and practice and procedure of this parliament. It is absolutely out of order on a bill such as this. I am as friendly to increases in old age pensions as is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I have been all my life. I fought for them in England when I was a boy of eighteen, and I voted for the Lloyd George pension bill in 1911. I have been fighting for them all my life. I have been quoting the essential rules of procedure of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appreciate the minister's consideration of this matter. In reply to the interjection which I think was made by the hon. member for New Westminster to the effect that this was known around the corridors-


Thomas Reid: I did, sir.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to say that I let it be known to at least one official of this house because I felt it was an important matter and it would be desirable for those who would be dealing with it to have an opportunity to study the rules and be prepared to deal properly with the matter. There was nothing out of the way in the point referred to by the hon. member for New Westminster.


Thomas Reid: I did interject that remark. I heard that there was going to be an amendment to the old age pensions bill by some

Old Age Pensions
member of the C.C.F., but they reckoned it would be ruled out of order. They were prepared to have a vote on it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not correct at all. This matter is important, not only to the old age pensioners but to parliament itself. I listened closely to the remarks of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and I did not notice that he quoted directly any citation from the rules of this house. The minister said he was giving what he believed to be the procedure, but I quoted chapter and verse repeatedly in support of my contention. The minister expressed the opinion that this might have been done in committee on the resolution, but I would call to his attention citation 445 of Beauchesne's third edition, which I read before. By the way the words "on the bill" are in italics, emphasizing that it has to be done in committee on the bill. Let me read citation 445 again:
It may happen that the resolution sanctions some expenditure without fixing the maximum amount to be spent.
That is what the resolution did, the resolution that was introduced and passed by committee of the whole.
If, for instance, the resolution recommends that adequate salaries be paid a newly constituted body and the amounts of the salaries are fixed in the bill based on that resolution,-
The amount of pension is fixed in this bill. I ask the committee to note the rest of this sentence.	.
-the committee on the hill has the right to increase those amounts,-
It will be noted the words on the bill are in italics. The place where it has to be done is in committee.
-because, in doing so, it does not go beyond the scope of the royal recommendation.
I submit that the case is airtight. It would not have been possible had the minister in introducing the resolution fixed the maximum amount as was done in several other cases, but in this case it is. I think this committee should take advantage of this opportunity to do a service to the old age pensioners by asserting our rights as members of the House of Commons, bearing in mind that this would be doing only what the government wants to do a little bit further on. It would not be a vote of confidence in the government; it will not cost the government its position in power, but it does give us a chance to do what we have wanted to do for years, vote in this parliament as members on the question of how much our old age pensioners should receive.


Mr. MacINNIS:: The heat with which the Minister of Veterans Affairs got up to speak against this amendment is a clear indication of the weakness of his case. Instead of quoting as he almost invariably does, the authorities to support him, he did not do so because there were none.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The practice of five hundred years will support him.


Angus MacInnis: Whether the practice of five hundred years is embodied in Beauchesme's Parliamentary Rules and Forms I do not know. But I want to make this point. The Minister of Veterans Affairs says we should have moved our amendment on the resolution. Obviously we could not move our amendment on the resolution because we did not know then what amount of pension the minister was going to propose, and it would have been presumptuous for members in this part of the house to anticipate the minister by proposing an amendment to the resolution. It just could not be done. Accordingly we moved our amendment at the only place where it could be moved and be in order. I suggest to the Minister of Veterans Affairs that this is not a matter of politics or a matter of anything else except a clear interpretation of the rules of this house. We should have an expression of opinion on whether the members of this house believe that old age pensioners should receive S50 a month or $30 a month. The rules clearly give us the right to move the amendment, and I suggest that we take a vote on it.


John George Diefenbaker: Ordinarily the minister, being acquainted with the rules, produces authorities to support hi9 contentions. On every occasion in the past on which he has made an argument, he has, lawyer-like, produced his authority. Today, however, instead of producing an authority from the rules- and there are many hundreds of them-the only authority produced by the minister, as he quite frankly admitted, was his own opinion which he read. He did not deal with rule 445. If that rule means anything, and it is to be noted that the author put certain words in italics, it does support the contention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Maj' I say that it was my own opinion after consultation with the legal officers.


John George Diefenbaker: After all it is not a question of what the legal officers think. So often the minister has said: We in this house follow the rules made by this house or applicable to this house. But, sir, I point this out to you, that either rule 445 means what it says,
Old Age Pensions

accentuating as it does certain words, or it is meaningless. I read that rule once more:
It may happen that the resolution sanctions some expenditure without fixing the maximum amount to be spent.
That is the situation here. The resolution provided generally for an increase in the old age pension without in any way stipulating, the amount. It was therefore impossible on the resolution for any such amendment to be made as the hon. member has moved today, because no one then knew what the amount proposed would be. The learned author goes on to point this out:	.
If, for instance, the resolution recommends that adequate salaries be paid a newly constituted body and the amounts of the salaries are fixed in the bill based on that resolution-
The resolution provided generally for an amount but did not fix the amount. The bill fixes the amount. So up to that point the rule is on all fours with the situation now before Your Honour. Now come these pertinent words:
-the committee on the hill-
Those last three words are italicized:
-the committee on the bill has the right to increase those amounts, because, in doing so, it does not go beyond the scope of the royal recommendation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not the rule, though. It is a marginal note.


John George Diefenbaker: This is not a rule today, but these have always been rules in the past, and that indicates how far we are being asked today to depart from what actually are the provisions governing parliament. Sir, I suggest to you that as rule 445 supports entirely the contention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, any decision in support of what the minister has suggested would not be in keeping with the rules, in fact would be contrary to section 445.
Mr. LOW': I have listened with great interest to the case made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; also to the arguments that have been advanced by the minister and others who have spoken. I was impressed by the logic and the citations given by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I am satisfied that he did sustain his case, and further, that citation 445 does uphold his contention and does make the amendment completely in order. I was not impressed at all by the arguments advanced -or at least the statements made-by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, because he did not make any citation. Therefore I must support the contention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


John Bracken: It is apparent that this house is facing a very unusual situation with respect to procedure in dealing with what is generally known as a money bill. There is no question that the intent of our rules is that no private member can propose an increase in government expenditures or a decrease in government revenues in the normal course of procedure. I have listened as attentively as I could to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Apparently there has been a departure from the normal procedure in this house by the minister in introducing this bill. I listened to the Minister of Veterans Affairs in his defence of the normal procedure and I heard nothing except his own opinion. As to the present procedure I listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and to his very logical presentation. I think it impressed most members of the house. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in making your decision you state very carefully the rules which determine your course if you declare this amendment out of order, or in the alternative that somebody else on the government side get up and make clear that the course the government is following is within the rules. Otherwise if you rule this amendment out of order I shall be prepared to support those who may oppose your decision. I am speaking now, not on the question of $50 a month for the old age pensioners, but solely and wholly on the question of the present procedure. I want a defence by the government, or by the chairman, of the procedure followed by tlhe government, because so far as I am concerned up to now the merit of this debate goes to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.	[DOT]


William Ross Macdonald: The amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raises a question which your chairman has never had to face before. It is generally known that any increase in expenditure must be recommended by a minister of the crown. May I read from Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure at page 524:
The committee on the bill cannot increase duties without a previous resolution of the committee; but it may reduce them in accordance with the settled principle that gives every facility to the removal of public burthens.
That principle has always been observed and respected in the house. In this case the bill was preceded by a resolution in which no definite amount was stated. It is my opinion-and I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to it-that the citation in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, that it would have been in order for the committee of the

Old Age Pensions
whole on the resolution to fix the amount at that time. The committee did not do so. The government has now fixed the amount. I take it that by accepting the resolution the committee and the house left it to the government to fix the amount.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The government has fixed the amount. It is now proposed by this amendment to increase that amount. The only reference made which gives me any trouble is citation 445 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, which was quoted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I am frank to admit that it does give me considerable concern. I would refer to the fact that it is the opinion of the author of this book, a man who is versr highly regarded not only in this house but. throughout Canada as an authority on parliamentary procedure. I have always relied on the principle that a motion to increase expenditure must be proposed by a minister of the crown. Upon re-reading the reference I see that it refers to salaries; it deals entirely with salaries. The bill now before the committee deals with the imposition of an allowance which will create a substantial tax burden on the taxpayers of the country.
I have no hesitation in saying that it is with considerable difficulty I have been able to make up my mind. No precedent has been cited other than the reference by the distinguished author of this book, and as I say, it does not refer to such wide-sweeping legislation as is envisaged by this bill. For these reasons I must rule the amendment out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, with great respect, as you, sir, will realize, I have no option but to appeal your decision to the house. In the report that you make to the Speaker I would ask, sir, that you indicate that it was felt by those who sponsored this amendment that it was in order because it was within the scope of the royal recommendation.


William Ross Macdonald: Hon. members will
understand that the appeal is to the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend made an intervention to explain his attitude. I should also like to make one. I want you, sir, in your report to explain that in my opinion if this amendment passes it will kill the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Try to explain that to the country.


Percy Ellis Wright: Let us go to the country on At.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
When Bill No. 339 was under consideration in committee of the whole, Mr. Knowles moved that section 4 be amended by deleting the words "thirty dollars" from line 20 and substituting instead the words "fifty dollars." The chairman ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that the amendment would increase the amount fixed in the bill and this could not be done except with the consent of the crown. From the chairman's decision Mr. Knowles appeals.


John George Diefenbaker: I was paired with the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Eudes). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Chairman's ruling.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was paired with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). Had
I voted, I would have voted against sustaining the Chairman's ruling.
(Translation):


Mr. GAGNON:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget). Had I voted, I would have voted against your ruling.
tion section about Indians. For two years we have had a committee considering this matter, and they have done splendid, patriotic work. They heard many organizations and received many briefs, but I do not believe they will be able to have their report dealt with this session. I read one of the briefs, I just forget which one because there were so many, in which mention wras made of the provinces contributing in a case like this. I received a letter from a clergyman in Saskatchewan, near where the troops went. during the northwest rebellion in 1885, referring to the Indians and Eskimos. He said their school had burned and he did not know where they were going to go in September.
I should like the minister to consider this. We have had a long time to decide whether or hot they are citizens and certainly something ought to be done for them. I understand from what I read in the briefs filed by the provinces and the dominion and what was submitted to the Indian committee that contributions would be made by one or two of the provinces in certain cases of necessity, where no other contribution was available, and also that hospitalization and education would be provided.
There was a matter which I raised at the last session and which would be covered by section 4 of this bill, the providing of attendants for the blind. These people walk around; some of them at times are knocked down, and they should have attendants who should receive some federal aid herein.
(Text):


Mr. JAQUES:: I was paired with the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. MacKinnon). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Chairman's ruling.
(Translation)':


Mr. HAMEL:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle). Otherwise, I would have voted against your ruling.
(Text):


Mr. KUHL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Michaud). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Chairman's ruling.
And the house having resumed in committee :


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The committee was considering section 4.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to take a moment to raise on this section the question I raised with the minister on the interpreta-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know the hon. gentleman has been interested in this question for some time, but I would point out to him that we are giving great consideration to the matter. No doubt he will recall the terms of the proposals made to the provinces in this regard. Provincial consultation was undertaken in an effort to cover that class to which my hon. friend refers. As he knows, they are 100 per cent the responsibility of the federal government. The kind of cooperation asked of the provinces is essential, but it is not forthcoming, and we can understand the attitude of the provinces. The hon. member will note that, under the Indian Act, Indians are entitled to certain benefits which are not open to other classes of people. It would perhaps be placing the group my hon. friend has in mind in a preferred position as compared with the provisions being made, for instance, in connection with the recipients of war veterans allowances. I know the matter is one which interests a great number of members of the house. It is a matter which has been considered by the government, and I can only

Old Age Pensions
say to my hon. friend that the Indians can come within the provisions of the new act by becoming enfranchised.


Solon Earl Low: Section 4 of the bill is the section under which we were to discuss the means test, and I should like to discuss it in a particular way by citing a particular case.
I do this for two reasons: first, to set the details of the case squarely before hon. members of the committee for their information; and, second, to show the effect of the means test regulations which are now in force and which will exist up to the passage of this bill, upon people who have some other source of income or some property. I intend to refer particularly to the case of Jim Winters.
This case was the subject of a fantastic series of newspaper articles which appeared during April of this year. A number of hon. members came to me and asked about the newspaper reports. For instance, the hon. member for Swift Current handed me a copy of the report and had the decency to ask whether or not the details as reported were correct. Not so the hon. member for Outre-mont, because it seemed that the newspaper story as it was, exactly suited his purposes. On June 24 he made it the subject of a totally irresponsible and completely inaccurate speech in this house.
In order to make certain that hon. members had the exact details of this case I wired the old age pensions board in Edmonton, and I should like to read the short statement which they issued. It reads:
In view of the inquiries which the old a<p pension hoard is receiving concerning the Old Age Pensions Act and regulations made thereunder and with particular reference to a recent newspaper story of an aged pensioner which appeared in the Wetaskiwin Times and the Edmonton Journal, the board welcomes the opportunity of giving correct information to the public.	.
Explanations of the old age pensions legislation have been published from time to time but unfortunately there appear to be many people who do not know or understand them.
Old age pensions in Canada are governed by an act of the dominion parliament and regulations authorized by the act. The only authority which can change the Old Age Pensions Act or regulations is the dominion parliament. This act contains what is popularly referred to as a means test which requires that the entire means of an applicant or pensioner such as earnings, superannuation, gratuities and other income in cash and in kind such as board, lodging, et cetera, as well as real and personal property shall be considered in determining the amount, if an}', of pension which can he paid. This means test among other things requires that the cash assets or cash value of a pensioner's personal property shall be considered under regulation 17 (a) as follows:	_ _	_
"For the purpose of determining the income of any applicant, the pension authority shall
take into account all sources of income including (iii) the amount of an immediate Canadian government annuity, ordinary life plan, payable quarterly with the cash and securities of the applicant taken at current market value in excess of a sum not exceeding $250."
By definition the term "applicant" includes "pensioner." In the case of the old gentleman referred to in the recent newspaper story, he sold his farm in the fall of 1944 for $2,,500 cash. The sum of $2,250 being the amount in excess of $250 as required by the above regulation on being referred to the dominion government annuities schedule, indicated that for the sum in excess of $250. that is, for $2,250 the dominion government annuities branch would pay the pensioner $134.84 everv three months which is $539.36 a year for the rest of his life. This information was conveyed to the pensioner by letter at the time.
The regulations did not compel him to pay over any of the money he received from the sale of his farm. Although the total amount of pension he had received from May 11, 1930, to August 31, 1944, amounted to approximately $3,600. Nor did the regulations compel him to purchase an annuity. But under dominion regulation 17 (h), the provincial government (which is responsible to the dominion government for the proper administration of the act and regulations) is compelled by the legislation to consider the amount of the dominion government annuity which he could have purchased, that is $539.36 as his annual income for life.
Under present old age pensions legislation, no person is legally entitled to a pension if he or she has an income of as much as $425 a year.
That is the old ceiling which, I understand, has now been increased to S600.
This old gentleman had the means to provide himself with an annual income of $539.36 for life and he was supposed to do so for his own good. Unfortunately, he did not do so and in the meantime has exhausted his means and from now on must depend on provincial and municipal assistance for his maintenance and care.
Chairman,
Old age pensions board.


Mr MARTIN:: What is the date of that letter?


Solon Earl Low: The 19th of April. To show just how irresponsible and completely inaccurate were the statements made here the other evening, and to set the record straight, I am going to quote from Hansard at page 4592, and I am extremly happy that the hon. member for Outremont is now in his seat to hear what I have to say to him. He said at page 4592:
I now- turn my attention to a clipping from the Globe and Mail, the heading of which states, "Didn't buy annuities so Alberta won't pension man, '105.". A few minutes ago we heard from the hon. member for Lethbridge about people ranging from seventy-two to eighty years of age. But here is one 105 years old, living in Alberta. He lives in Wetaskiwin.
Mind you. Mr. Chairman, he should have recognized that this might have been part of
Old Age Pensions

a campaign to discredit the province of Alberta, which I really believe it was, but the hon. member for Outremont went on:
The article states:
"Jim Winters, Alberta's oldest resident, will be 106 years of age next month and the argument is still waging as to whether or not be should get an old age pension.
Citizens of Wetaskiwin say 'yes.' The provincial government pension officials say 'no'." Mr. Quelch:	The federal government says no.
Mr. Rinfret:	It is the provincial government
which has the authority.
Mr. Quelch:	It is a federal act.
Ignoring completely what my hon. colleagues tried to impress upon him, the hon. member for Outremont continued:
Mr. Rinfret: And it continues:
"The government says the $2,000 he received from the sale of his farm 45 years ago should have been put into annuities. His friends ask 'what man of his age would buy annuities'?"
His farm was not sold forty-five years ago. It was sold in 1944. The discussion proceeded: Mr. Quelch:	Federal regulations.
Mr. Rinfret:
"So far, both sides are unconvinced and the battle still wages."
Mr. Johnston:	Federal regulations.
Our members continued to impress on the house that this was a federal regulation, which the hon. member for Outremont completely ignored and refused to admit. The hon. member for Outremont went on:
The question I ask the Social Credit party is: Is this man Jim Winters on their Indian list?
I just want to answer the hon. member for Outremont. Jim Winters is not on our Indian list, not by any means, and I say that the question of the hon. member is irresponsible and quite unbecoming to a man of his training. He went on:
'So I am asking whether Mr. Jim Winters is on the Indian list. For him I demand that at the age of 105 he be given a pension.
I hope that the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare heard what the hon. member for Outremont demanded. He was demanding that the Alberta government give this man a pension. The Alberta government had done its best under the regulations, but was prevented by the dominion act and by regulation 17 (a) from granting a pension to Mr. Winters. The discussion proceeded:
Mr. Quelch: Page the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin).
Mr. Rinfret:	When he (Jim Winters) sold
his property he was sixty-one years old.
That is a complete untruth. He only sold his property in 1944 and he had then been on the old age pension list since 1930, for fourteen years. He certainly did not sell

his property when he was sixty-one years old. The hon. member for Outremont continued:
Who can imagine a man of sixty-one taking out an annuity?
In the light of the statement which I have given to the house I just want to ask this question. The hon. member for Outremont, who is reputed to be a brilliant lawyer and the son of a former minister of justice in this dominion-


Mr. RINFRET:: That is not true. He was never minister of justice, and I wish the hon. member to withdraw that.
Mr. LOW':	I am sorry I made a slip. I
should have said son of the present chief justice.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is quite right.


Solon Earl Low: If that is what we can expect
from a man trained in the law, a man who is supposed to be able to weigh evidence and be a judge of evidence and to get at the truth and present the truth, I ask hon. members whether we shall ever be able to get justice for the aged people of this country. Furthermore, I ask this question:	Is it a
brilliant thing for any man in this house who poses as a responsible representative of the people to base his whole case on a newspaper clipping without attempting in any way to check the accuracy of the information contained in that newspaper clipping?
There is just one other point I would mention in connection with the speech made by the hon. member for Outremont in the house on the evening of June 24. I do not attempt for one second to defend the hon. member for Pontiac; he is perfectly capable of defending himself, but I do want definitely to say, in answer to the statement made by the hon. member for Outremont, at page 4591 of Hansard, that he was wrong again when he said:
The amendment is much less ambitious than the one moved last year by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Caouette). I say that the Social Credit group have reduced somewhat their demands on this question.
I want to say to the hon. member for Outremont that he dad not know what he wns talking about. He had not stopped to examine the terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lethbridge and seconded by myself, so as to know what it did contain. We have never in any way nor at any time reduced the request we made last year. Here is one group that has been consistent in this house right along with respect to our requests for assistance for our aged pensioners.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: For twelve years.

Old Age Pensions


Solon Earl Low: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for allowing me to put this information on record, because this information respecting the Old Age Pensions Act and the regulations should be in the hands of every member of this house and should1 be within the knowledge of the people of this country. Let me emphasize once more that the provinces, not only Alberta but all the provinces of this dominion, are bound in their administration of their own old age pension regulations by the dominion act andi its regulations, and cannot depart from them. Dominion auditors are regularly going through their records and their books, and in any event where they find- that a province has departed from the dominion act or regulations, deductions are made from the federal reimbursements for expenditures made by the provinces in paying the pensions. And further, the Jim Winters case demonstrates the inhumanity of the means test.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I am very gald to have heard from the hon. member. His declaration and statement at least prove that what I have said is true. There is a man by the name of Jim Winters who is 106 years of age and who is not at the present time receiving any pension from the government of Alberta. The regulations, it is true, have been put into operation after having been agreed upon by the federal and provincial governments. The federal government is supposed to reimburse the province for seventy-five per cent of what the province decides it will pay.


Solon Earl Low: Not with respect to Jim Winters. That is not true.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Jim Winters sold his property, not forty-five years ago, but in 1944.


Solon Earl Low: That is right.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I said that nobody can imagine that a man would invest that money in annuities when he was sixty-one years of age. Certainly there is nobody who would imagine that he would invest it when he was 103, and that was in 1944. So my argument is made stronger still by what the leader of the Social Credit party has just told us, that Jim Winters was 103 when he sold his farm.


Solon Earl Low: After that demonstration I would hate to have the hon. member defend my case.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: This man has lost his money and is not getting any money any more. That .was from the declaration in which he said that he will have to depend upon municipal and provincial charity. Well, if he is in a condition where he has to depend upon
charitable institutions, both municipal and provincial. I think it is time that an old age pension was granted to him.


Solon Earl Low: So do we.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I am sure that the federal government will be pleased to assist him to the extent of seventy-five per cent.


William Henry Golding: I think both sides of this controversy have now been dealt with, and I should like to ask every hon. member to deal with the section under discussion. If they want to get through the business of this session and get home that is the only way to do so.


John Bracken: We are dealing with section 4, which is one of the most important sections of the amending old age pensions bill. It deals with the question of finance, with the question of the share of the burden which will be assumed by the dominion government and with the question of maintaining the means test. It fails to provide any pension or assistance to persons under seventy years of age; it fails to provide for pensions to the blind under forty.
I want to ask the minister two or three questions. My first question is, Why does the government now come forward with the proposal that the dominion government pay only seventy-five per cent of this $30 pension? I ask the minister that question in view of the proposals made by the government of Canada itself in the statement it made to the provinces some two years ago. This is what the governr ment says:
As part of the general proposals now put before the conference, it is proposed that the federal government would establish a system of national old age pensions entirely financed and administered by the federal government, and paid at the uniform rate of $30 per month regardless of means to men and women aged seventy and over in all parts of Canada.
I ask the minister to be frank with the committee and tell us why, in the face of that and other statements of the government, it now comes forward with a proposal which puts at least twenty-five cent of the cost of the proposal on the provinces. The question is, why does the government come forward with a proposal that it pay only three-quarters of the cost of this service?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The question which the leader of the opposition has put is a fair one. It has, of course, been pointed out by me on several occasions throughout this debate, and, in particular, in detail in my opening statement, why we have brought forward this proposal. It is true that in August, 1945, the government proposed to the provinces a
Old Age Pensions

national scheme of old age pensions to which it still adheres. As I have repeatedly stated, that scheme involved the payment, without a means test, to everyone in Canada seventy years of age and over, of a pension, the full cost of which was to be borne by the federal government. Another part of the scheme was that the federal government and the provincial governments on a fifty-fifty basis would pay pensions to individuals between the ages of sixty-five and sixty-nine.


John Bracken: Let us deal with the one point first.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The leader of the opposition asked me a question and I must answer it in my own way. The hon. gentleman asked me why we are doing only this and I am giving him the reason. I am sure my hon. friend will see that I am making only a fair request when I ask to be allowed to explain my position.


John Bracken: I do not want the minister to misrepresent what I asked. I asked only in regard to those seventy years of age and over and he has now started to explain about the sixty-five and sixty-nine year group.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I may not be as clever as my hon. friend, and I may take a long time to explain what I mean, but I am doing my best.


John Bracken: Thank you.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have said that the national scheme with regard to those between the ages of sixty-five and sixty-nine, on the one hand, involved a fifty-fifty contribution by the provinces and the federal government. With regard to the seventy and over group we were prepared to pay the full cost without a means test. You cannot look at these proposals simply' by themselves, because the government stated that they were part of a general plan. They were part of a plan that would cover a scheme of health insurance and social security; they were part of a scheme that would involve a plan of public investment, the total cost of which annually would run over $600 million. That portion of the old age pension scheme referring to the government's willingness to pay a pension to everyone seventy and over without a means test would cost the government over $200 million a year. These, as my hon. friend will appreciate, are not ordinary figures. The government's scheme was a plan in which every part had its place.


Mr. MacNICOL:: What does the minister mean by "the government's scheme"?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The proposals put forward by the government to the provinces in August, 1945. The government stands by these. My

hon. friend asks why at this stage we are prepared to pay only seventy-five per cent when we said to the provinces in August, 1945, that with regard to persons seventy years of age and over we would pay the full cost.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Without a means test.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is my hon. friend's question. I ask him to be good enough to bear in mind what I have just said. There are several reasons why we did not do that. If we did that now, I suggest to him that we would be open-as indeed some provinces told us when the provisions of this bill were being brought to their attention-to the charge that it would be regarded as a departure from our proposals; that the way to deal with our proposals was not to offer ahead of time something that could be used as an excuse for not doing anything later on.
The next reason is that we have to consider, if we are to implement the whole scheme of social security envisaged by these proposals, that we have the money to do so. You cannot have the money to do so if you put all your money into one channel without regard to your other obligations and the whole structure of your social security scheme. That is the reason why this government, quite properly I think, trying to work within the context of its proposals to the provinces, endeavoured to act in such a manner that it would be able to give interim relief to the aged, without in any way giving to anyone an opportunity to say that we intend to use this scheme as an excuse for not going ahead, once we get an agreement with the provinces, in regard to social security.
If we had brought in a proposition now taking over the full cost of the old age pensions ourselves and not asking the provinces to bear any share we would be charged -and I am quite sure that we would be legitimately charged-in many quarters with using our old age pension scheme of 100 per cent assumption of financial responsibility as an excuse for not going ahead with regard to health insurance and public investment. I am one who intends to do all I can to see that we have health insurance in this country, to see that we have a public investment programme once we get an agrement with the provinces. I would not do anything which would give any party or any group in this country an opportunity of saying, "Well, now, you have done that; that will cost a lot of money; that will cost $200 million; surely you have done enough." That is what would be used against us, and it was because <5f that sort of thing that I proposed to my colleagues, with the great social security programme that we have in mind if we could get an agree-

Old Age Pensions
ment with the provinces, that we continue on this basis. I am sure that if my hon. friend will calculate the payments which are paid by the provinces now toward the upkeep of old age pension and compare them with the contribution made by the federal government he will see that I was on pretty firm ground.
I have in my hand a table which I wish to give to the committee and which perhaps is, in addition to what I have said, as complete an answer to the hon. gentleman's very fair question as I know how to give it. This statement shows the provincial expenditures on old age pensions under the act in relation to federal expenditures for 1946-47:
Federal Provincial expendi- expendi-
Province	tures tures
British Columbia	 $3,848,058 $1,282,688
That is the situation in a province which, taking what we give and what they pay, will provide the old age pensioner, at the present time, under this act, without spending one cent more, with the sum of $38.75. I give the other figures:
Province	Federal Provincial
Alberta	
Saskatchewan	
Manitoba	
Ontario	
Quebec	
New Brunswick	
Nova Scotia	
Prince Edward Island .
$2,761,580	$ 920,526
3.167,165	1,055,7211
2,913.472	971.124
14,246.224	4,748,74,1
,12,072,701	4,024,233
2,815,433	938,477
3,240,690	1,080,230
375,Oil9	124,006


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Has the minister the figures for health in the case of Saskachewan?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have simply given a table of expenditures under the act for the federal and provincial governments. These figures clearly indicate that this government is now spending, roughly speaking, $48 million on old age pensions as opposed to $17 million by the provinces, and therefore is not making, under this bill any unfair imposition; and the reason why we have kept to this formula, and have not resorted1 to the formula involved in the green book is that the proposals to the provinces themselves stand as part of a plan which we said we would1 not depart from, and which if we had departed from, as suggested by my hon. friend's question-I do not say that he meant it in that way-would result in great numbers of people saying "Well, there the government has a plan which it has substituted for the broader social security objectives in the proposals made to the provinces." That is what would be said. That would be a strong argument, and it was because of that consideration that I did not propose, as one who believes in a system of national security, to allow myself to be trapped.


John Bracken: My question to the
minister was why, in this measure, the dominion government is not assuming the whole cost of old age pensions for. people over seventy. I asked that question because this government two years ago undertook to do it in agreement with the provinces. Hon. members have 'heard the minister's answers and the public will be prepared to assess those answers on their merits. What has he said? He said that we have not a dominion provincial agreement with all the provinces. He has said that the provinces are not paying enough, and he declares he is on firm ground with his present proposal, which, in his own words, will be an added contribution by the dominion of some $20 million. In his own statement just now he admitted that the cost of old age pensions at seventy without the means test would be $200 million. That was the proposal made by this government two years ago, and the committee has heard the minister's answer as to why they discarded it. I suggest that is not the real answer at all.
I am going to read now the views of a man who is supposed to be an authority on this matter. He was quoted by the minister himself as an authority on social questions and as being probably more interested than any other human being in this house in this matter. I am referring to a man who made a speech in this chamber sixteen years ago on this question. I refer to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King). This is what he had to say on the question of the share of cost that should be borne by the dominion government. And this statement was made before they ever had a thought of dominion-provincial agreements. I quote from the House of Commons Debates, 1931, June 2, at page 2260, the words of the present Prime Minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yesterday the minister
called that a discarded opinion.


John Bracken: This is what the right
hon. gentleman said:
It was recognized that an amendment to the British North America Act would take some time, and for that reason the government of the day-
He was speaking of the Liberal government.
-adopted the method of agreeing to give these grants in aid to the provinces on condition that they would carry out a scheme framed by the federal government which would be similar in all the provinces. .
An hon. Member: A vicious principle.
Mr. Mackenzie King: The principle, from a financial point of view was unsound. I am quite prepared to concede that. But I will go a step further and say that, in my opinion, this parliament ought to remedy the unsoundness of the
Old Age Pensions

principle, not by discontinuing to vote money lor old age pensions, but by assuming the entire obligation, one hundred per cent. This government should take over the whole scheme and itself pay out the money. That is the position that should be taken; that is the proper way to remedy what there is of unsoundness in the principle.
Mr. Chaplin: That is an extension of the vicious principle.
Mr. Mackenzie King: No; on the contrary, it is getting rid of what is vicious. I wish my hon. friend to follow me in this. The principle of old age pensions is a thoroughly sound one.
I drop a couple of lines.
Obviously the principle is thoroughly sound. I have always taken that position and have fought strenuously for it; and to get that principle recognized by parliament I was prepared to go so far as to support a grant in aid, which I am perfectly frank to admit was, from the point of view of financing, an unsound method. Now I say, let_ us recognize that the principle of old age pensions itself is perfectly sound and involves an obligation which the federal parliament should assume. Let us undertake to administer the Old Age Pensions Act from Ottawa and have all the moneys which are necessary for the payment of those pensions voted by this parliament.
That is the view of a man who is quoted by the minister of health as an authority. Yet, in the face of that and in the face of the position of the government and their offer to pay 100 per cent of it two years ago, they come forward with this seventy-five per cent proposal. In the face of a plan which the Prime Minister was advocating and which would cost this country $200 million, the minister brings forward this plan of giving only $60 a year of an increase to old age pensioners.
I now wish to ask the minister another question. In the face of the decision of the government to eliminate the means test, why does he come forward now with a plan which perpetuates it? In their offer two years ago they knew the cost of that plan. I ask the minister to answer now why he comes forward with an entirely different plan.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I point out to the hon. gentleman that I respect the high constitutional authority to which he has just made reference.
Mr. MaeINNIS: He was in opposition at the time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would remind the gentleman that there are extenuating circumstances which perhaps will explain the situation, and these I give. But before doing that, may I remind the hon. member that, before the federal election in 1930, the then leader of the opposition, Lord Bennett, said that if he got into office he would propose the taking over by the federal government of the full

cost of old age pensions. That was also the attitude taken by the followers of my hon. friend under other leadership all through the parliaments between 1926 and 1930. When Lord Bennett became Prime Minister of Canada in 1930, he did make a change in the Old Age Pensions Act by increasing the federal contribution from fifty per cent, at which figure it then was, to seventy-five per cent. He did not do what he said he would do, namely, bring the contribution up to 100 per cent. That is an important point to note. Since the Prime Minister made that statement, if my hon. friend will read the debate, as I am sure he has done, he will find that the whole context of it reveals an attitude which was shared not only by the leader of this party, but by the house in general; but the statement was in respect only of a scheme for old age pensions. The proposals which were laid before the provinces in 1945 went away beyond that, They involved considerations which, I would again remind the hon. gentleman, called for the expenditure of over $600,000,000 annually, to be paid by the federal and provincial governments. I think one must read the statement made by the Prime Minister, which my hon. friend has so correctly quoted, in the light of those proposals. I now come to the question about the means test. I tried to indicate yesterday that no country in the world has eliminated the means test, even those which have a contributory system. New Zealand has a contributory system, and she has a universal free system. Australia has both systems. So has Great Britain, and so has' the United States. In all those cases they retained the means test. No country where there is a universal free system has abandoned the means test.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Would the minister allow me to make a point?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.
Mr. MaeINNIS: In New Zealand the universal superannuation does not carry a means test, It has not reached its full amount, but it will not carry a means test even when it reaches the full amount.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the case of New Zealand, the universal superannuation now stands at $7.36 a month, which is actually less than the amount we pay in Canada under family allowances to a child thirteen years of age.
Mr. MaeINNIS: But it is increasing by so much every year. Do not be cheap. Tell the whole story.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not given to being cheap. Please let me go on.

Old Age Pensions


Angus MacInnis: Quite. I would not have disturbed my hon. friend if I had thought he [DOT]was going to make a cheap gibe out of the point I made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Believe me, I am not trying to do anything of the kind, although the hon. member may have thought that.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am really trying to deal with this question as objectively as I can, because it is an important and difficult one. What I have said with regard to the seventy-five per cent applies in equal measure to the means test. The proposals which were laid before the provinces must not be taken individually; they must be taken as a plan.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Take it or leave it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, if my hon. friend wants to take that attitude in a discussion of this kind, I cannot help it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government does.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I say, the proposals must be taken as a plan which will cost this country a great deal of money every year, and we shall be committed to it for the rest of our lives. I am not opposed to that, but I am pointing out what it means. When the government had those discussions with the provinces we did not say we would do this or would do that. We said we were prepared to do all of these things, but they are all integrated. That must be kept in mind. I did not want to bring before this house a proposal with respect to this measure-and the elimination of the means test would have meant that very thing-which would give anyone the chance of saying, "You have now done something very generous. That will be your substitute for the proposals themselves." To hon. members who are interested in seeing a social security programme built up
gradually, stage by stage, each government participating, I have no hesitation in saying that I am sure, on fair reflection, they will see the wisdom of the statement I have just made. We have not taken away the means test as applied to people of seventy and over, for the reason I have mentioned. What we have done is to liberalize the means test to a considerable extent.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The effect is to reduce the income under the new act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. The hon. member wants to say it reduces it, but let me indicate what- it means.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I will tell the minister that it reduces it by $219.


Mr. WARREN:: Would the hon. member like to abolish it?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Certainly, I should like to abolish it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think sufficient attention has been paid to the provision for increases in maximum incomes allowable.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I do not think the minister has paid sufficient attention to that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says he does not think I have.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: If the incomes are
reduced, they are not increased.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can only say that I have used the best brain power I have, but I will admit that perhaps it is not as much as my hon. friend would like to see. Perhaps I might put this table on Hansard with the consent of the committee.


William Henry Golding: Has the
minister consent?


Some hon. MEMBER:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The table is as follows:
Comparative table showing increases in maximum incomes allowable (inclusive of pension) to pensioners under the Old Age Pensions Act and the amending bill
Income allowed including pension or pensions payable under present act and wartime orders in council (Per annum)
1.	Single old age pensioner	 $ 425
2. Married old age pensioner (sighted spouse)	 850
3. Married old age pensioner (blind spouse)	 925
4.	Single blind pensioner	
5005.	Single blind pensioner (dependent child)	
7006.	Married blind pensioner (sighted spouse)	
9257.	Married blind pensioner (blind spouse)	
1,000
Under new bill (Per annum) $ 600 1,080 1,200 720 920 1,200 1,320
Old Age Pensions

I do not say this does everything; I do not offer it as a full and final measure, but I suggest with great sincerity that these figures, in the light of our obligations, which are tremendous; in the light of our proposals to the provinces; in view of the fact that these are among the most liberal means test provisions to be found anywhere in the world, do not offer justification for much of the criticism which has been made. And to the hon. gentleman who put the question, I say that is the reason the means test was not eliminated, and particularly so that no one could say we were short cutting the proposals, made to all the provinces, that we were seeking to do by ourselves something less than we had said we would do on a much greater scale with the provinces once we got fiscal agreement.


John Bracken: The question I asked the minister was why he has come forward now with a proposal which does not eliminate the means test, after the government undertook in their plans two years ago to eliminate it. One part of the minister's answer is that no country in the world has eliminated the means test. But the government knew that fact when it proposed to eliminate the means test two years ago. The minister now pleads the huge cost of these social services as an excuse for not proceeding with the government's original plans. He said the great plans they had in connection with all these things would cost the dominion and the provinces $600 million", and therefore the government could not proceed with them except to the extent of about $20 million. I want to ask the minister this. They did bring in a social security plan-family allowances-which cost this country $250 million a year, about five times the cost of old age pensions, and they did not require any means test- for it. I ask why they did not have a means test in that case, and why they persist in retaining the means test under the old age pension scheme.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to say to the hon. gentleman again, as I have said twice already today, perhaps inadequately, and as I have said before in the debate, that the proposal to the provinces regarding the means test was part of a plan. It was conditional. We could not do it by ourselves, in all responsibility, but we were prepared to do it as part of a plan if we were able to get fiscal agreement with the provinces. What my hon. friend is saying is that if you make an agreement to pay a man $1,000 for a horse and he does not give you the horse, you must still give him the $1,000. Really that is the same thing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend made what, I think, was a fair observation, though I do not believe it is valid. He said, "But you did that with regard to family allowances, which cost $250 million. You did not consult the provinces, and you do not have a means test." I wonder if my hon. friend has thought carefully about that observation. That was a matter of financial assistance to children who were supposed to be at school, not earning money. How could you apply a means test to them?


John Bracken: I have two or three other questions to ask the minister. I think he let the cat out of the bag a minute or two ago in connection with this matter when he spoke of the huge cost of the government's social security and public investment plan, which was to be $600 million. That is why this government have come along with this little plan; they are afraid to face the people with the costly plans they put forward two years ago. That is why this plan is now brought forward. The government can take one side or the other of this position, but not both. It is now trying to make scapegoats of a couple of provinces that did not come in. It says it is their fault that we cannot have this huge social security and public investment plan which cost the country $600 million a year. As I said, the minister has let the cat out of the bag. The government is afraid to face the public with that huge expenditure. That is why these plans are whittled down to what they are today.
I now want to ask the minister another question. Why has the government left entirely out of its proposal the offer of a fifty-fifty plan of public assistance to persons between the age of sixty-five and seventy, the offer it made two years ago? I ask the minister to explain why the government has taken this position, after two short years. I ask him to answer that question in the light of the statements which may be found at page 38 of this so-called green book, containing the 1945 proposals of the government of Canada. This particular feature, deals with the means test and, a little later, with the public assistance proposal for persons under seventy years of age. What did they say about the means test, which the government is now perpetuating? These are their words:
The principal feature of the proposed national old age pensions is the elimination of the means test after reaching age seventy, regarding tnis as unsuitable for the oldest group in the community over eighty per cent of whom are not in fact capable of supporting themselves in useful, re-

Old Age Pensions
munerative work. Payment of pensions as of right to people of this age offers the best kind of economic security.
That is this government, two years ago.
It removes the fear of destitution much more certainly than any other method, and relieves old people of the necessity of seeking work, or of endeavouring to keep on working in unfavourable circumstances and beyond the age at which they should be able to retire, wtihout dependence on charity or burdening the family. In addition to providing a minimum subsistence for those with no other resources, this system would enable other persons with moderate private savings to retire from active work sooner, or in more comfort, than would otherwise be possible.
Then comes this closing sentence:
The removal of the means test would make it possible for these pensions to be administered by the federal government alone on a uniform national basis, without the necessity for provincial participation, and would thereby considerably relieve provincial finances.
That was the view put forward by the government two years ago. But what have we today? A complete denial of that proposal. I ask the minister now why he is doing nothing for people under seventy years of age, in view of what the government had to say two years ago with respect to them.


Ralph Melville Warren: Because the provinces did not agree.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Six o'clock.


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


John Bracken: Yes, but I will give you time to answer it after dinner.


Ralph Melville Warren: I should like to ask the hon. member a question.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at seven o'clock.


John Bracken: When the committee rose at six o'clock I was about to refer to the government's promise of two years ago that it would share with the provinces on a fifty-fifty plan for assistance to aged persons between the ages of sixty-five and seventy years. My question is: Why is the government not making any provision to meet that situation now?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought I had answered that earlier. I can only say that that was part of a full plan which embraced proposals with regard to health, public investment and social security. Each part has to be taken in conjunction with the whole. I was not going to
propose to this parliament at this stage anything which I felt and which the government feels would be regarded as a substitute for a much more all-embracing system of social security, health and public investment.
There is one additional fact with regard to the 65-69 proposal. In that case the responsibility of the provinces would be greater than under the present bill. They were to share the cost of old age assistance to persons between sixty-five and sixty-nine years of age on a fifty-fifty basis, and I may tell my hon. friend that they would not have gone for that proposal.
One must bear in mind that we have made great progress since last year when my predecessor stood in this place when this matter was discussed on the estimates. He was not in the fortunate position I am in today in being able to say that we have agreements on fiscal matters with seven provinces. That means that we have gone a great bit forward since that time and we are much closer to the stage when we shall have a social security conference. I have no doubt in my mind that we shall receive sufficient acceptance by the provinces other than those seven to enable us to deal with the definite proposals we have in mind.
The provinces which are out represent, I will not say all the wealth of the country, but I think it can be stated definitely that they do represent about eighty per cent. Their population is quite large, and two-thirds of the population which would be affected by social security measures are in those two provinces. How long we shall have to wait is another matter. But that is what the hon. gentleman should keep in mind; it is what I have to keep in mind and what the government has had to keep in mind.
We had made broad proposals in the three fields of health, social security and public investment. When one looks at what we were prepared to do in the field of health alone by way of low interest costs for hospitals, by way of attacking tuberculosis and other diseases, by way of planning grants and so on, he will realize that we have a formidable programme, a programme which, I think, we should all aspire to, regardless of our political affiliations.
Those are the objectives which we had in our minds. It was because of those objectives that it is more desirable to have a broad social security scheme than to have one that is lopsided, one that gives relief to only one group. Surely what we should aim at is to give social security assistance to all groups, and that is what the proposals envisage. If w:e do anything that will prejudice
Old Age Pensions

that or give anyone justification for saying that this is a substitute, I believe we would not be doing justice to the Canadian people. I am sure that, on reflection and analysis by those in this house who have given this matter their careful attention and by the public generally in Canada, there will be agreement with the position I am taking.


John Bracken: I have one further
question to ask and a brief statement to make, and then I think I shall have finished. I asked the minister why the government has brought forward no plan for pensions for persons between the ages of sixty-five and sixty-nine years. Hon. members of the committee have heard the minister's answer, which is again to the effect that he has no over-all agreement with all the provinces. I suggest that that is a very weak answer. The simple fact is that because two of the provinces are not in this agreement today this government is spending S100 million less than it would otherwise have had to raise and spend. The contributions to those provinces would have been something over $100 million. The government does not have to raise that amount under its present plans.
The minister states that to provide old age assistance for persons between the ages of sixty-five and seventy years would cost at least $34,000,000 a year. Let me point out that, because those other two provinces, Ontario and Quebec, are not in this, the government does not have to impose taxes of $100 million; it does not have to pay them that $100 million; and therefore it is more able to finance some of these services than it would if those two provinces were in.
The committee has heard the minister's answer to my question. In the light of that answer, I want to read the views of the government two years ago with respect to assistance to persons of the ages of sixty-five to seventy years as contained in a thoughtful document, namely the proposals of the government in 1945. I read from page 38, as follows:
The minimum age for national old age pensions must be definite and fixed; it cannot vary with individual cases. It must be recognized, however, that there will be an intermediate age group in which a significant minority of persons will be unable, by reason of age, to support themselves without assistance.
This is the government of Canada speaking two years ago.
These persons who, in fact, suffer from the disability which old age pensions are intended to assist, should not be left with no other resources than local poor relief for the temporary period which must elapse till they reach the qualifying age for old age pensions. Accordingly, it is proposed that the existing system of joint dominion-provincial old age assistance on a means-test basis, which it is proposed to

supersede as regards persons of 70 and over, should be adapted to meet the needs in particular eases of persons of age 65-69, with a federal government contribution of 50 per cent of the cost.
And two or three sentences below:
The federal government offers to provide financial assistance and give tangible expression to the national interest in the matter, by contributing 50 per cent of the cost.
I present that considered statement by this government as given two years ago and put it side by side with the statement which the minister made, today in justifying the present measure.


Mr. GLADSTONE:: You are just picking that out of the entire proposals.


John Bracken: I am saying exactly what was here in the government's own proposals, that and no more.


Robert William Gladstone: Which was part of an entire programme.


John Bracken: It is, in substance, the complete statement of the government on this particular question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Was it not conditional on the whole plan?


John Bracken: The minister says it is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do not the proposals themselves say that?


John Bracken: At the beginning it says that it is part of a general plan, which the minister says is conditional upon all the provinces coming into an agreement with the federal government. I have just pointed out that you are $100,000,000 better off because two provinces did not come in. You do not have to tax the Canadian people the $100,000,000 that would go to them. If those two provinces had come in, you would have had to raise $100,000,000 more. So the government is more able now to provide $34 million for people between the ages of sixty-five, and1 seventy who need assistance than it would have been if those two provinces had come in.
I have one other question to ask and then a short statement to make. I would ask the minister how many blind persons there are in Canada say between the ages of twenty-one and forty, and what would it cost to provide pensions for them at the present rate of pensions for the blind over forty.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know what I can do to satisfy the hon. gentleman. I have done what I conceive to be my deliberate best. The hon. member for Wellington South, has perhaps put it better than I did. The proposals put forward by the government were never put

Old Age Pensions
forward as individual proposals, but as part of an integrated plan. My hon. friend speaks of our financial position now. While it is considerably ameliorated, my hon. friend must not, if he wants to do justice to this issue, lose sight of the total cost of the whole plan. I may be wrong, but I conclude from what he has just said that he does not share with me the desire to see health insurance, public investment, and an all-embracing-


John Bracken: I would ask the minister not to put words into my mouth.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was only drawing conclusions.


John Bracken: The minister drew wrong conclusions yesterday and he is doing so again.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend wants to see health insurance and public investment and the kind of social security that I have envisaged in this country, then in fairness to those proposals and to the Canadian people he must have in his mind what the total cost will be, unless he shares the view of those who sit at the extreme left of the Chairman as to the ways and means by which those proposals can be financed. If he does take the view that I lake, that there is so much money to do these things, that the Canadian people can stand so much and only so much, then he must, I think, in all logic take the position that I have taken. The proposal to give old age assistance between the ages of sixty-five and sixty-nine and to pay the full cost of pensions to those seventy and over without a means test was part of a gigantic plan which, in the words of Sir William Beveridge, would place Canada foremost amongst the nations, if realized. That is the government's objective. The hon. gentleman may say that the government would never be able to realize its objective for this reason or that. That would be a fair way of putting it, but he should not go on saying that the government has reneged on its proposals. On June 27, 1946, the then minister of finance used these words:
They (the dominion's proposals) remain, nevertheless, an essential part of the programme of this government. We continue to be ready to proceed with these or similar measures as and when arrangements can be worked out which enable us to carry them out satisfactorily. We earnestly hope that those who have it in their power to make agreement possible will not long delay in making it possible to consummate the objectives we have in mind.
Then the Prime Minister, on July 15, made this statement, which has been repeated-I said wrongly three times yesterday-seven times since:
The public investment and social security proposals submitted last August remain an
essential part of the dominion government's programme. As soon as there is a sufficient acceptance of the proposed tax agreements we shall be ready to explore in a general conference or otherwise the possibility of working out mutually satisfactory arrangements in regard to the whole or any part of our earlier public investment and social security proposals.
That is the policy of the government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the minister read the whole extract? The extract given on page 4643 of Hansard says:	"the whole or any
part of our earlier public investment and social security proposals." It is not just the whole, but any part.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said that.


William Henry Golding: I would call the attention of hon. members to the fact that they are really dealing now with the principle of the bill. There was a long discussion of the principle on the second reading and the principle was agreed upon. Now that the bill is in committee, we should adhere strictly to the clauses.


John Bracken: I do not know whether the Chairman means me to discontinue these remarks. If he orders me to discontinue, I will do so, but under no other circumstances because I have one or two other things to say.


William Henry Golding: I would not want to interfere with the leader of the opposition. He has not said very much on this bill. But I think the members will agree with me that I have stated the situation correctly, and I hope that the members will try to cooperate. I do not want to be too rigid.


John Bracken: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for suggesting that I am not trying to cooperate. I doubt if that censure is due to me on this or any other occasion. I asked the minister a simple question: How many blind persons are there in Canada between the ages of twenty-one and forty, and what would it cost to give them a pension at the old rate for blind persons? He has said not one word in answer to that, but went on with a long speech in which he read some promise which the finance minister made some time ago and others which he said the Prime Minister had repeated seven times. But what we are interested in today, Mr. Chairman, is not the promises that have been made, but the reality that is being given to us by the government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend's question might come under section 5.


John Bracken: The minister may answer it then because he did not make one single reference to it just now.
Old Age Pensions


Paul Joseph James Martin: Because it was out of order.


John Bracken: The minister did not then give that as a reason. He made a long speech and avoided the question altogether.
I want now to raise another matter. The minister has raised the question of the approach of the different provinces to this question, and he chose to bring in Manitoba, and to paint its record in connection with old age pensions in an unfavourable light. Why he did that, I leave hon. members themselves to determine. Instead of defending and explaining his own bill, he went out of his way to try to find somebody to find fault with, and among other things he directed his criticism to the leader of the opposition, not in my present capacity, but when I was premier of Manitoba. He made two statements about me which he placed on the record. I think the truth should be put on the record in addition to his prejudiced statement. This is what the minister had to say about men when I was acting in that other capacity. I am quoting from page 4642 of Hansard:
But did the government of that day,-
That is the government of Manitoba.
-headed by my hon. friend who is now the leader of the opposition, do anything at that time to improve the status of the old age pensioners? No. At that time my hon. friend was the premier of a province, and let us see what he did when he was the premier of that province. In 1927 the bill became law. My hor. friend waited for a year before he brought 'n an act by which in Manitoba he could take advantage of the old age pension legislation passed by this parliament. He waited a year, and, using the kind of argument which he uses, I say to him that for a whole year he deprived the old age pensioners of Manitoba of something which this government was prepared to give them.
This dominion legislation was passed in 1927. In 1928 the Manitoba government entered upon the scheme. It was not the last province to enter upon it. I think only one province had entered upon it prior to the time we did


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: British Columbia and Saskatchewan.


John Bracken: With all deference, I think the hon. member is wrong.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Two provinces.


John Bracken: British Columbia came in, in 1927; Manitoba and Saskatchewan came in, in 1928, and' six other provinces came in later.	.


William Henry Golding: Order. I think I shall have to call the attention of the

hon. member to the fact that, in my opinion, this is not in order on section 4. I leave the matter to the committee. If they are agreeable to the presentation being made it is all right.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I-


John Bracken: On a question of
privilege-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to help my hon. friend.


John Bracken: I am sure you do.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think that both of us were out of order on this particular question, but since I dealt with the hon. gentleman in particular I think he should be allowed an opportunity of answering me. In that regard I would ask the committee to permit him to answer.


John Bracken: The minister dealt with this question in closing the debate, at a time when nobody could answer. The statements he made and the inference he drew therefrom were completely wrong. I can raise this matter on a question of privilege if I am denied the right to do it on some other ground.
I have referred to one part of what my hon. friend said. May I go on to another. The minister went on to say :
Then what happened? My hon. friend'ceased to be Premier of Manitoba in December, 1942.
That in itself was an error, but I am not emphasizing that point. The minister continues :
He became the leader of a great political party.


Mr. KNIGHT:: Another error.


Some hon, MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: A serious error.


John Bracken: That is the one part of the minister's statement that was accurate. I continue:
Then three months after his going out of office the present government of Manitoba did something which for fifteen years he (Mr. Bracken) had failed to do, namely, to increase the old age supplement payable by the province of Manitoba on top of what had been paid.
The minister ended up in this way:
Therefore I say by a man's deeds he shall be judged, and not by statements made in the heat of debate in respect of a vitally important matter.
What the minister said in that statement was that something had been done three months after I left the premiership of Mani-

Old Age Pensions
toba which had not been, done before. That is an incorrect statement and the minister ought to have known it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have the act here.


John Bracken: I hold in my hand the Journals of the legislative assembly of Manitoba for 1941-42. I was the premier of that province until the middle of January, 1943. This is the record of what happened with respect to old age pensions in Manitoba in 1942. On February 17 of that year this resolution was introduced into the legislature of Manitoba:
That a special committee of the legislature be appointed for the purpose of a thorough study and examination of "The Old Age and Blind Persons' Pensions Act" and all subsequent regulations and orders in council affecting the same, and making such recommendation as may be deemed necessary and desirable.
The resolution goes on to give the names of half a dozen members of the committee. That resolution was passed unanimously by the legislature of Manitoba.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was that a government resolution?


John Bracken: No; it was introduced by a private member, Mr. Renouf of Swan River, at present a member of the legislature. Members of all parties were on the committee. The motion was unanimously accepted. They brought in a unanimous report. This is their report as it appears on page 101 of the 1942 Journals of the Manitoba legislature:
To the Honourable the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba,
Your committee on "The Old Age and Blind 1 ersons Pensions Act," beg leave to present the following as its report:-
Your committee has held some fifteen meetings and has heard representations from many organizations and from individuals. The committee has also received valuable aid and assistance from Major Neweombe, the commissioners, and from members of his staff.
In a number of cases your committee found that regulations were such that they created certain hardships but in many other cases where complaints were made as a result of the sitting of the committee, many matters were satisfactorily adjusted.
Your committee therefore recommends:
1. That the government of the province of Manitoba make strong recommendations to the government of Canada to the effect that the maximum old age and blind persons' pensions be increased_ from $240 to $300 per year which shall be subject to reduction by the amount of the income of the pensioner in excess of $125 per year, and that section 8 subsection "F" of the Old Age Pension Act be amended by striking out the words "$365 per year" and substituting therefor the words "$425."
2- That pay assigned by an enlisted man in His Majesty's forces to his parents or either of them shall not in any case be considered as income for old age or blind purposes whether
or not such assigned pay is augmented by dependent's allowance to either of such parents.
3.	That regulation 10 sub-section 8 be amended by striking out "5,844 days" and substituting therefor "5,114 days".
4.	That old age and blind pensions commence from the date, of application as they did formerly providing all qualifications are in order.
5.	We recommend an amendment to regulation 17 governing the computing of income so as to provide that medical, hospitalization and other extraordinary expenses paid by members of the family as contribution to pensioner or paid out of pensioner's income should not be taken *as income in computing pensioner's income.
6.	Your committee strongly urges that this
government take immediate steps to try and insure that the above recommendations become effective at the very earliest possible date and that every effort be made and continued by this government to bring the above changes into operation.	'
7.	It is recommended to the government that all the other provinces be approached by this government, with the object of insuring that all the other provinces join with us in urging upon the dominion government the desirability of making the necessary amendments to "The Old Age and Blind Persons' Pensions Act" in order to make these recommendations effective.
That was the unanimous report of the committee. representative of the whole legislature. On pages 116 and 117 of these journals, reporting the activities of March 30 and 31, 1942, that resolution is reported as receiving the unanimous approval of the legislature. That, Mr. Chairman, was while I was Prime Minister of Manitoba, the time when the minister said we did: nothing about the matter.
Now what happened? That resolution, as passed unanimously by the legislature, was forwarded, while I was still Prime Minister of Manitoba, to the government of Canada, to the then minister of finance, urging that the dominion government accept that proposal and join with the provinces in making another $5 a month increase to pensioners, the province undertaking to pay its share of that increase. What was the result? This government turned down that proposal for reasons that it kept to itself. We advanced the plan and they turned it down. Yet, in the face of that decision of this government to turn it down, the government of Manitoba came along and said, "We will pay our quarter of that amount whether the dominion government does its share or not". It was some considerable time later before this government undertook to bear its portion of the cost.
That, sir, is the record, and that was all done in 1942.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The increase was in 1943, and by the federal government.

Old Age Pensions


John Bracken: But this was done by-Manitoba in 1942, and the federal government refused to cooperate with us in that increase until later on. Those are the facts. Yet this is what the minister said about it, at page 4642 of Hansard:
Therefore I say by a man's deeds he shall be judged, and not by statements made in the heat of debate in respect of a vitally important matter.
There are the facts. The minister made an exactly contrary statement yesterday. The least he can do now is to do what he *did in respect of another matter yesterday-admit that he was wrong and say these decisions were arrived at while I was still Prime Minister of Manitoba and not after I had left.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want to take up time on this point, but I have been asked to do so. I must say that I cannot admit error, because the hon. gentleman has not dealt with the point I made yesterday. He became leader of the Progressive Conservative party in 1942. I have before me here a copy of the act passed by the legislature of Manitoba on March 17, assented to on March 17, 1943, three, months after he left the office of Premier of Manitoba, and it was by this act that the supplement was given in Manitoba, three months after he had left. That is all I can say, in full substantiation of my allegation of yesterday.


John Bracken: The committee heard the statement from the Manitoba Journals with respect to what was done in the legislature of Manitoba in 1942, while I was premier- In that year the full plans were made for increasing the pension, and in that year, this government refused to cooperate. Then the Manitoba government decided to come forward and pay its share whether the dominion did or not. That could be done only at a session of the legislature, and the legislature was not due to meet until after I left. I left in the middle of January, 1943. Those are the facts. Yet the minister has not seen fit to withdraw the incorrect statement he made, a statement that was incorrect, both as to who took this action in the province of Manitoba, and as to when the decision was made.


Angus MacInnis: I wish to deal specifically with section 4 which we are now considering. This is the section which states the amount of the pension and the conditions under which it will be paid. Speaking before the dinner recess, the minister made a great deal of the amount of income the pensioner

would have outside of the pension the government would pay under the bill.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That is outside income.


Angus MacInnis: As a matter of fact, the government is not to be thanked for the outside income. That is income the pensioner has already. Of course there is an improvement, because of the larger outside income allowable, but in deciding the adequacy of the pension we should not consider the amount of income the pensioner has, that is, the outside income. We should consider the pension when it is the sole income. If you take it on that basis, then the pension payable under this measure is $360, and what we have to ask ourselves before passing this measure is this: There are people in Canada, as is proved by the government's own green book, who have no outside income and whose total income, therefore, under this plan will be the pension-$360. It is worse than that, if I read the measure correctly. The bill provides, in paragraph (c) and in the following paragraphs, what the pension shall be. I quote from (ii):
. . . married to and living with a sighted spouse, and the total income of such person and his spouse, inclusive of pension is not more than $1,080 a year . . .
But supposing a man's wife has no income at all. In such circumstances, under this old age pension bill the man and his wife are supposed to live on $360, because that is the only income they will have. As I said before, there is no use in talking about outside income. What we should seek to provide in this legislation is an income sufficient at least to provide the necessities of life for persons who have no outside income. Unless we do that, these people will either have to beg or slowly starve. I should like to find some satisfactory explanation for that. In his remarks before the dinner recess, the minister mentioned that Canada had the most generous means test of any country in the world.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As a result of this bill.


Angus MacInnis: 
John Ritchie MacNicol: You would not call them modest, would you?


Angus MacInnis: I would suggest that the minister put a modest amount in this bill where the wife or husband of the pensioner, as 83166-3011
Old Age Pensions
the case may be. has reached a certain age but is not yet eligible for the old age pension.
The minister made a great deal of the fact that in 1946-and I am giving the figures roughly as I remember them-the dominion paid $48,000,000 and the provinces paid $17,000,000 to old age pensioners. Then, strangely enough, in replying to the leader of the opposition he went on to show what a catastrophe it would be if this government were to assume the whole cost of old age pensions under this measure. Since the government already pays seventy-five per cent of it, and in view of the expression of opinion by the present Prime Minister in 1931, if the government assumed the $17,000,000 which the provinces are now paying and the additional $20,000,000 which the minister says the dominion will have to pay under this bill, making a total of $37,000,000, surely that will break neither the government financially nor the minister politically.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is broke.


An hon. MEMBER:: It might make him.


Angus MacInnis: After what the minister said in introducing this bill, by the time it is through I am afraid he will need certain rehabilitation. I am convinced of that and I should like to save him from it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you very much.


Angus MacInnis: The government can pay the whole amount of the pension without running into any of the dangers mentioned by the minister. I do not believe the minister was quite frank in his reply to the leader of the opposition as to why the government did not do something for those between the ages of sixty-five and sixty-nine. I have an idea, which I received from reading the green book, that the government did not do anything in that connection because they recognized that the provinces could not carry that load along with what they are carrying now; at least seven of the provinces could not carry half the cost of old age pensions of $30 a month to people from sixty-five to sixty-nine years of age together with the twenty-five per cent of the pension they are now carrying for those seventy years and over. I am quite sure that is the reason, because I believe the minister realizes it would be putting upon the provinces a burden they could not discharge. If the provision were put in the bill there would be a demand by the people in the provinces that it be implemented. Most of the provinces have already gone the limit in what they are able to pay, but the federal government has not gone the limit in what it is able to pay. Right on the first page of the proposals of the government of Canada to the dominion-pro-
472C
Old Age Pensions

vincial conference of August, 1945, referring to the preparations for a hetter Canada after the war, I find this:
The preparations must be undertaken against the background of severe depression and the enormous dislocations of war. Under the conditions which existed for nearly a decade prior to 1939 the Canadian economy did not provide adequate opportunities for employment and enterprise; the deficiencies in the provisions for social welfare became strikingly apparent; the structure of government finance in our federal system developed basic strains and weaknesses. The war came before solutions to these problems were reached.
Then a little further on:
The demonstration of the potentialities of the Canadian economy has been one of the outstanding features of the past few years. In a relatively short time national production was doubled. Nearly one-half of this greatly expanded output was devoted to war. In spite of this large effort, the general level of civilian consumption was not reduced, for the lower income groups it was significantly increased.
If we can do that-and we have done it- with 750,000 of our best producers taken out of production, there is no reason in the world why we cannot give the old people of Canada and those in the low-income groups generally a better break than they are getting under this bill.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, section 4 fixes the pension at $30 a month and prescribes the means test. This section, therefore, is practically a summary of the whole bill and reopens the whole question of the principle of the bill.


William Henry Golding: I would not want my hon. friend to take the attitude that it opens the question of the principle of the bill. The principle of the bill is not to be considered at all in committee; it was decided on second reading. I just want to draw my hon. friend's attention to that fact.


Angus MacInnis: May I just say that I think what the hon. member had in mind is the principle in this section of the bill.


William Henry Golding: Speeches in committee must be relevant to the clause under consideration, and as long as the hon. member keeps to the clause he will be quite in order.


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to give some attention to the adequacy or inadequacy of this $30 a month, and to the inadequacy of the means test. I desire to say something also with respect to the advisability or otherwise of denying the Indians the old age pension, which also is mentioned in this section of the bill. Later on, I should like to have

something to say about the Indians, but at the moment may I give my attention to this matter of the $30 a month.
In my judgment, Mr. Chairman, this Old Age Pensions Act constitutes a contrite confession of abject ineptitude on the part of the government.


John Oliver Probe: I would not say it is contrite.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, there is a confession with no reservation. That is contrition, is it not? They just come before us and say, almost with tears in their voices, "We just cannot do any more. We have gone the limit."


Thomas Vincent Grant: We give them what we promised to give them.


Mr. QUELCH:: That remark indicates a very short memory.


John Horne Blackmore: There is another difficulty in connection with the bill. During this long and excellent discussion, many good points have been brought out. I have enjoyed every minute of the debate, listening to the various hon. members express their views and criticisms, and I wish to compliment the Chairman on the way in which he presided over the proceedings this afternoon. I thought he was wise in permitting an open discussion of the whole matter, because in my opinion, we shall make far better progress on this bill if that is done than if there is an attempt to restrict discussion. This matter of old age pensions is exercising this nation from coast to coast, in every hamlet, on every roadside, in every farm home. We cannot have this matter dealt with lightly.
During the discussion the minister made several references to the government's overall scheme, so I gather that this bill is part of an elaborate scheme on the part of this government for rationing scarcity. Where is that new order we heard so much about in 1941 and 1942? Dear me, anyone with any common sense at all knew the government could get money by taxing the very bread out of the mouths of the people; and that if they destroyed the financial independence of the provinces by taking away their taxation fields they could obtain a sum of money which they could ration out meagrely to certain extranecessitous people. There is nothing new about that. They knew about it back in the days of Greece and Rome, and before that. What we were all looking for was a really new order; but anything the minister has said so far, and what he has given us in this bill, certainly do not encourage much hope for anything resembling a new order. As I said a moment ago, it is merely the rationing or

Old Age Pensions
redistribution of scarcity. It represents a definite admission that it is impossible for the people of this country to have more than just so much, and that so much will depend upon the amount of money they happen to have, with no reference at all to the amount of goods they can produce. I have been astonished at the few times anyone during this debate has said anything about the $12,000 million worth of goods we Canadians can produce.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon. friend knows, I would be the last one to interrupt him, but I think a discussion of ways and means by which money can be raised is not relevant to this bill or to this section. This section contains certain clauses and I think we should confine ourselves to them as closely as we can.


John Horne Blackmore: I appreciate the
minister's kindness and I shall certainly do that very thing. However, the minister must remember those ringing words of his Prime Minister who said: "Usury once in control will wreck any nation; once a nation parts with the control of currency and credit, it matters not who makes the laws". He must recall those words many times with mortification and shame. When the Prime Minister made those remarks in 1934, and again in August, 1935, when he spoke to the Dominion of Canada over the radio from Ottawa, he certainly gave the Canadian people the idea .that he had something in his mind better than what is suggested and outlined by this bill and its monstrous system of penalizing the Canadian people, robbing them of the things they have and redistributing their scarcity. We have had discussions this afternoon as to how many provinces have come in, as to making them pay their share, as to not being able to do anything until we get them all in and that kind of thing. I think I have said enough along that line. All hon. members who have been thinking along that line will admit that I am speaking for them.
Let us turn to what this bill actually does. It proposes to give our old age pensioners $30 a month. There appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail in April, 1947, an article which has been referred to directly and indirectly several times. It states that $28 weekly in 1939-40 was equal to $53 today. I am not going into the question of whether or not those figures are right because I fancy they are, since the Globe and Mail I believe is rather dependable on a matter of that sort. I should like to point out what that, if it is true, means in regard to this bill.
If $53 today is the equal of $28 in 1939-40, it means that this bill is offering to the senior citizens of Canada who have passed their
seventieth year. $15.80 a month in 1939^0 money. When he looks at the bill from that angle all the enthusiasm must die in even the minister's breast.


An hon. MEMBER:: No funny money
there.


John Horne Blackmore: That is just exactly where the funny money is. I do not want to discuss it, but I would point out that we are going to get to this question of money before long. Hon. members are bringing themselves right up against a stone wall. They are beginning to find out that the only thing they can do is to accept the minister's ideas or accept the idea of a different way of financing this country. It is certainly funny money we are using today when one dollar of it is only equal to-


William Henry Golding: Order. I
should like the hon. member to tell me what paragraph of the bill he is dealing with.


John Horne Blackmore: I shall not talk any more about it if it is your determination to shut off any hon. member who attempts to offer a solution. Is that not the most grotesque situation? I shall simply tell you something about this bill.


William Henry Golding: If the hon. member will confine his remarks to section 4 of the bill he will be quite in order.


John Horne Blackmore: The discussion which we have 'had back and forth on section 4 which provides for $30 a month, has centred completely on where we can get the money. It has been a question of money, money, money. That has been in everybody's mind, and surely a little more discussion along that line ought to be in order. But if it is not, good enough. I am going to turn now to another aspect of the question. I might just say, in passing, that really funny money is such money as changes its value so grotesquely as Canada's dollars have done from 1939-40 to 1947.


An hon. MEMBER:: Phony money.


John Horne Blackmore: Phony money too. I should like to offer some evidence to show how completely inadequate this bill is. I am glad the leader of the opposition referred to the situation in Manitoba. I have had a little experience with the good folk of Manitoba;
I find they are very progressive and have for a long time been trying to get somewhere out of their difficulties. I have here some evidence which was gathered by an energetic group in Manitoba and which bears on the whole question of the adequacy of this $30 a month.
Old Age Pensions

On April 15, 1947, a survey was presented by W. H. Sykes, Chester King and Mrs. L. Brett, who formed the executive council of the Winnipeg conference on the Old Age Pensions Act, Winnipeg and district trades and labour council. The findings of these people will be of interest to members of the committee. I quote:
The following resolution was adopted by a conference composed of the following organizations: church groups, trade unions, legions, community clubs, war amputations, guards association, service clubs, political groups, pension society, et cetera, held on February 25, 1947, at 165 James avenue east, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
The fact that those various organizations were so deeply interested in this matter is, I think, a good indication that a very wide and full discussion of old age pensions is completely in order. They go on to say:
Our organization is in full accord with and urges your immediate consideration for the enactment of the following amendments in the o'ld age pension regulations:
1.	Payment of pensions be made at 60 years of age.
2.	That the only residential qualifications required be fifteen years in Canada.
3.	That the system of a "means test" be abolished immediately.
4.	That an increase be made in the present amount to at least fifty dollars per month.
5.	That the same pension be made applicable to blind persons after they reach 18 years of age.
6.	That the practice of combining the parents' maintenance act with the Old Age Pensions Act be discontinued.
7.	That no deductions be made on account of other income.
8.	That pensioners shall receive free medical attention and free hospitalization.
9.	Inability to produce a birth certificate should not deter applicant from furnishing proof.
We consider the above measures require your immediate action.
It will be quite obvious to all hon. members that in advocating more generous provisions in our Old Age Pensions Act the members of the Social Credit group and the, C.C.F. have certainly been in touch with the people of Canada. The brief goes on to say the following:
The Winnipeg conference on old age pensions which is representative of community, church, social, political, military and trade clubs and organizations in this city and a cross-section of people from every walk of life, is deeply concerned for the welfare of these elderly citizens and in an effort to alleviate their distress the conference interviewed individually the M.L.A.'s of the Manitoba legislature and then a delegation also waited on Mr. Stuart Garson, Premier of Manitoba, at which time the following brief was submitted:
Sir:
I have here the budgets of three people, one man and two women who are trying to keep
[Mr Blackmore.]
body and soul together on the pittance of $25 per month allowed by the Old Age Pensions Act.
If we add the proposed $5 to what they were getting we must be still impressed by the inadequacy of the pension. It goes on: I have also a food budget and diet for one person living alone which is the minimum amount required to maintain good health and strength, and finally a list showing the comparative costs of food at the time the Old Age Pensions Act was passed and of today. The figures are taken from the advertisements in the Free Press dated April 1, 1926, and April 1, 1947.
First the budgets of the pensioners:
No. 1, the budget of a man living alone, aged
77 years.
Room rent	 $ 8.00
Laundry, soap, tobacco, etc	 2.40
Food	 14.60
Total	 $25.00
His diet:	Cents
Breakfast-milk and toast	 10
Dinner-Porridge, milk, bread and
butter	 20
Supper-A sandwich of meat spread and on meatless days egg sandwich, and coffee	 22
Daily total	 52
or $3.64 per week or $14.56 per month.
He must depend on charity for his clothes or other necessities, and in order to conserve his strength he sleeps a great deal.
I think that will be lurid reading for the people of the future.
The man has not a chance in the world to go to a show or to have any amusements at all. He has nothing with which even to buy street car tickets, and so on, and so on. I said the other night that we were consigning our senior people to a restricted area of deprivation, and that is exactly what we are doing. It is obvious from that budget. Take the next one:
The second case is the budget of a woman 78 years of age, a spinster, living alone. She was formerly a domestic and has no known living relatives:
Rent	
$9	00Gas	
1	00Soap	
40Food	
14	60
Her diet (She cooks her own meals): Breakfast: Porridge, toast and butter, tea	 $ .15
Dinner: Meat, such as pork liver, bacon ends, kidney, heart, headcheese and brisket; one potato, one vegetable, such as cabbage, turnip or carrot; pudding or bread
and jam	25
Supper: Bread and milk or soup and
crackers; apple or orange	13
Total cost	 $ .53
per day or $3.71 per week or $14.60 per month.

Old Age Pensions
Her grocery list for a month:
Rolled oats, two cartons	 $	.50
Milk, 1 quart per day	 3.90
Butter, i pound per week	70
Sugar, 1 lb. per month	10
2 doz. eggs at 45 cents per dozen.	...	.90
Meat (usually liver, bacon ends, kidney, heart, brisket or headcheese	2.00
14 dozen	oranges	50
5 lbs. apples	50
Bread	 1.00
Soda biscuits	10
Soup (10	cans)	  1.00
Vegetables (carrots, turnips, onions,
cabbage, potatoes	 2.00
Tea, i lb	45
Jam, salt,	pepper, flour, etc	95
Total	 $14.60
Comparing costs with 1926 this same diet would have cost $10.51 per month, or in 1936, $8.75 per month.
Members will be interested to note that the people who have conducted this survey, have been very careful, factual and accurate.
It goes on:
The third budget is that of a lady of 90 years who lives in the home of a relatitve but cooks her own meals. She does not pay any rent, and many little luxuries are provided by the relatives as well as all necessary clothing.
Her budget is: Food, $23.52; laundry and miscellaneous, $2.60; total, $26.12.
cost
Breakfast: 1 egg, bread and butter and
tea	 $0.13
Lunch: Bread and butter; cheese; cake 0.19
Dinner:	Meat (steak, chop, sausage
stew or cold meat); 2 vegetables, potatoes; bread and butter; dessert; tea,
approximate	 0.45
At bedtime: Milk and cookies	 0.07
Daily cost: $0.84; weekly: $5.88; total for month: $23.52.
You will notice that this diet is much better than the other two but still does not include sufficient fresh fruit. In 1925 this lady's grocery bill for the month would have come to approximately $14.25.
Sir, I have asked the opinion of not one hut three qualified dietitians what they thought of these diets. Their comments were: "Impossible"; "Slow starvation" and "Extremely poor to maintain proper health."
*Curious as to the actual cost of foods and rents at the time the Old Age Pensions Act was passed, I went to the Free Press library and copied the prices from the advertisement of a chain store of that day, April 1, 1946. also checked on the same stores' prices in 1936 and again in 1947. I shall not quote the 1936 prices except to say that good board and room could be had in the middle class residential districts for $16 and $20 per month including washing, and the use of the telephone.
Here is the minimum balanced diet for one person. If the cost seems out of proportion to the budget for a family of three or four, consider that one person living in a furnished room cannot buy in large quantities and usually has only a hot plate to cook on.
Breakfast:-
Remember, this is the minimum required for health.
Breakfast: Orange or tomato juice cereal with milk and sugar, toast with butter and jam, tea or coffee, cost approximately	 20 cents
Lunch or supper: Soup and crackers 1 egg or piece of fish, green salad, milk pudding or cookies, tea or coffee, cost approximately .... 30 cents
Dinner:	Meat (must be something
which can be fried, or stewed due to lack of an oven, or perhaps cold	.
meat. Liver, beef or lamb stew, steak or chop); potatoes, carrots, peas, turnips, spinach or other green or yelloiw vegetable, fresh or cooked fruit, or a fruit pudding, cake or cookies, tea or coffee or milk, approximately cost	48 cents
Approximately 98 cents per day.
The pathetic aspect of this whole. situation is that that diet, which is the minimum required for health, costs every cent of even the proposed new pension and leaves hardly one cent for any other thing. It costs ninety-eight cents a day. This is what we are prescribing once more for the senior citizens of Canada.
I have a list of prices of a number of different items in 1926 and in 1947 showing increase in prices. I think it would be much better if I did not trouble the committee with reading them if I might have consent to put them on Hansard. I believe that a good many members would like to read this list on Hansard.


William Henry Golding: Has the
hon. member permission to put the list on Hansard?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


John Horne Blackmore: List	1947 price	1926 pricePotatoes, 3 lbs	10	.05Cake 	20 *	.10Cookies 	15	.10Canned fruit or dried	fruit 	70	.25Misc. salt, pepper, corn	starch, flour, etc. .	25	.22$6.88	$4.27Total for the month	: 4 x $6.88 for	1947-$27.52Total for the month	: 4 x $4.27 for	1926-$18.28Difference 	
$ 9.24
Comparative figures for foods in 1926 and 1947, as advertised in the Free Press of those dates April 1, 1926 and April 1, 1947.
Bate 1926 Date 1947
Item		-Price	

Price
Veal chops	.lb.	$0.18	$0.45Round steak 	.lb.	0.11	0.44Beef sausage 	.lb.	0.08	0.28Pork sausage 	Ih	0.12|	0.44Beef liver 	.lb.	0.06	0.26Finnan haddie fillets, lb.	0.12	0.35Pickerel fillets ....	,1b	0.12	0.24Chuck roast of beef,	lb.	0.08	0.32New laid eggs or	A	large 	doz.	0.30	0.42Butter 	.ib.	0.49	0.42Tomatoes, per tin...	0.15	0.15Navy beans 	.ib.	0.05!	0.19Cheese, old Ontario,	ih.	0.48	0.52Bananas 	.ib.	0.12!	0.15Oranges, med. size, *	doz.	0.45	0.45Sugar 10 lbs. 69c...	.lb.	0.07	0.10Raisins 	Ih	0.15	0.27Prunes, 30 to 40's,	lb.	0.12!	0.27Apricots, dried ....	Ib	0.18	0.55Peaches, dried 	Ih	0.12!	0.40Bacon-back bacon.	.lb.	0.38	0.57Tea 	.lb.	0.58	0.90Coffee 	.lb.	0.50	0.35Rolled oats-carton.	0.28	0.25Apples 	.lb.	0.05	0.12!Milk 	quart	0.12	0.13Bread, 16 oz. loaf..	0.07	0.07$5.55!	$9,074
You see how painfully price increases have borne upon those of slender incomes, especially pensioners.
I thought it was fitting that we should know what we are doing for the people in Winnipeg when we pass this bill as it stands. I do not believe that conditions would be a oit- better in any other city throughout the country from coast to coast. I am not going to talk about money reform at the present time, but I submit that if we cannot do anything better than this bill under the present financial system, it is high time that we went to work to remedy our money system. If Canada could not produce all these things required in abundance, produce all the food and all the clothing and all the shelter required; if there were not an over-supply of all these things; if the men who produce them were not eager to sell them in Canada, it might be different; but the simple fact is

that we can produce in abundance all these things which the senior people need, and various other commodities, much of which will lie idle on the shelves or go to waste if they are not used by the senior citizens. How can we possibly forgive ourselves for denying our people access to these abundant things which Providence has equipped us so amply to produce?


Charles Edward Johnston: There is no excuse.


John Horne Blackmore: There can be no possible excuse. Yet that is exactly the sort of thing we face in this house. I shall say very little more. I have been thinking of a little piece of poetry that I have not been able to get out of my mind all during the days that we have been talking of old age pensions. These lines I think everybody has loved. They are from Browning. They go like this:
Grow old along -with me.
The best is yet to be,
The last of life, for which the first was made.
In the light of what I have read here, in the light of this bill, there is a terrible lot of tragedy and pathos in these lines. For our present elderly people there is no possible chance of having the last of life better than the first. They cannot even maintain that health and vigour which would enable them to go and enjoy life if they had the opportunity. Having said that, I shall desist from further discussion.
I believe that every hon. member who is listening to me-and: they are listening so sympathetically, for which I express the greatest appreciation-feels exactly as I do about this matter. Then why do we not do something about it? We cannot do anything about it by continuing to discuss the matter in terms of the present financial system. The leader of the opposition, when he was questioning the minister a while ago, called him to task because he was not doing what his government promised to do two years ago. During the questioning the leader of the opposition did not tell the committee where he himself could get any more money in order to do the desirable things, if he were in power.
When I was a boy and began talking about the fine things we were going to do my father used to say, "Son, talk is cheap but it takes money to buy whiskey." I would say to the members of the Progressive Conservative party, talk is cheap but it takes money to buy whiskey.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: You said something.


John Horne Blackmore: If you cannot tell where the money is to come from you had

Old Age Pensions
better not indulge in too much talk. If I did not have some ideas as to where we could obtain more money I would not stand before the committee and spend any time in complaining about the conditions we now endure. When you remember the abundance we are producing and are able to produce it is so obvious that we do not need to make our old people suffer in this ghastly' way. And so I make bold to urge every once in a while upon the house. Surely something can be done. With that remark, Mr. Chairman, I close for the present. Surely something must be done.


Mr. HARKNESS:: The speech of the hon. member for Lethbridge has given me quite a number of ideas. He said that it takes money to buy whiskey. I have often wondered how the old people get along and can ever get a drink, as a matter of fact, on the amount of money that they receive.
I want to address myself particularly to subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (a) of section 4 of this bill which reads as follows: is not an Indian as defined by the Indian Act.
In other words, I want to speak briefly about the only class of people in this country who are now excluded from receiving old age pensions. These people are, of course, the original inhabitants of the country, the Indians.
Listening to the hon. member for Lethbridge recite his long list of food stuffs of various kinds and following that up with a small piece of poetry, I was reminded of a jingle from Shakespeare's "King Lear" which was constantly repeated by the half-mad beggar Tom. Everyone who has read that drama will remember that Tom went around constantly chanting:
But mice and rats and such small deer
Have been Tom's food for seven long year.
As a matter of fact I think it is practically and actually applicable to a lot of our Indians.
Mr. BLACIvMORE: Hear, hear.


Ralph Melville Warren: Not mine.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Why these people, of all the people of Canada, should be excluded from the benefits of the Old Age Pensions Act I have never been able to understand.
This afternoon, in replying to the hon. member for Broadview, the minister said that there were great difficulties in applying the Old Age Pensions Act to the Indians, because the provinces administered the act and, of course, they would not make any contributions so far as the Indians were concerned, since the Indians are the sole responsibility of the dominion. I should like to tell the minister that if he disregards any provincial contribution whatever and gives the Indians only the 83166-302
amount of the dominion contribution, namely, $22.50, they would be extraordinarily grateful for it. The present situation in which they find themselves is that they get relief in kind in the form of a certain amount of hard rations, amounting on the average, I believe, to around S5 a month. Why the aged among the Indians should be forced to continue on that scale of relief in their old age, while people who came to this country and, as the changes in the act provide, never became citizens, never learned either of our official languages and so forth, are now eligible for the old age pension, is something I cannot personally understand.
At the beginning of this parliament in 1945, I introduced a resolution into the house calling for the payment of old age pensions to the Indians. Everybody who spoke on that resolution-the debate continued all day- including the Minister of Mines and Resources who closed the debate, expressed himself in favour of paying old age pensions to the Indians, including a large number on the government side of the house. The resolution was talked out.
Following that, the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons which is considering the Indian Act at the .present time, passed a resolution requesting that old age pensions be extended to the Indians.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Did they not ask us to consider the desirability?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister may split hair as much as he likes, but actually the joint committee's intention was that the pension should be paid to the Indians, and the minister knows it.


William Henry Golding: Order. That matter is before a special committee.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The report was presented to the house and accepted so far as that particular matter is concerned; therefore I think I am in order.


William Henry Golding: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The house accepted the report, and therefore I take it that the house as a whole is in favour of extending old age pensions to these people.
I should like to ask the minister what consideration he and the government have given to this resolution which was adopted by the house. He said that it was merely a request for consideration. I should also like to ask him what consideration has been given to giving the Indians the dominion's share of the contribution, in other words $22.50 a

Old Age Pensions

month, because even that limited amount would go a long way toward settling the problems and the difficulties of the Indians.
I do not think it helps much for the minister to say, as he said this afternoon, that the Indians receive other help and that they are in a special situation and so forth. It is quite true that they are in a special situation, but what is the use of being in a special situation if it only entitles you to be semi-starved to death? You would be much better out of that.
The minister said that any Indian can apply for enfranchisement if he wishes. That is quite correct. He can, but it does not mean that it will be granted. As a matter of fact, before an Indian can be enfranchised he has to show that he is likely to be self-sufficient, so that the old Indians who might wish to be enfranchised in order that they can get the old age pension will not be accepted for enfranchisement. Enfranchisement will not be granted to them because they cannot show that they are likely to be able to support themselves. In view of all these things, I would ask the minister to give any reasons, other than the specious ones which have already been given, as to why these people continue to be excluded alone among all the people in Canada, from the benefits of the Old Age Pensions Act.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Perhaps the minister
can answer when I get through because I want to speak along the same line. If a private member could move an amendment in the manner I would suggest, I rvould move that line 32 in section 4 be repealed. As the member for Calgary East said, we are excluding from the benefits of this act a group of people who are in far greater need than any other group in Canada. We have heard the hon. member for Lethbridge read lists of foodstuffs that can be bought on the present pension, but these Indians have practically no money. The little bit of relief they do get amounts to about $3 a month, perhaps a little more now. That is however, what it used to be. These people are almost starving slowly to death. I do not see why the minister could not have included them in this bill, for the reason that when the former minister of health and welfare brought in the family allowance the Indians were included and they received the benefits of that allowance- As the hon. member for Calgary East said, we have had a committee set up here, and they have held many meetings and have worked hard and have listened to the stories

of the Indians and the terrible needs of the old people among them. That committee brought in its recommendations and moved unanimously that pensions should be given to the old Indians.
In the other chamber on Wednesday, May 7, the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons submitted its report.
I quote:
The joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons appointed to continue and conclude the examination and consideration of the Indian Act (Chapter 98, R.S.C., 1927), and all such other matters as have been referred to the said committee, beg leave to make their third report, as follows:
Your committee unanimously recommend that the government give immediate consideration to the advisability of granting old age pensions to Canadian Indians.
On Wednesday, May 7, 1947, the same third report was presented to the House of Commons:
Your committee unanimously recommends that the government give immediate consideration to the advisability of granting old age pensions to Canadian Indians.
This was concurred in on the 12th day of May. The minister said that they did give consideration, that the report only asked him to consider. But I think the committee, after listening to the story of these Indians, felt that the government should give the benefit to the older Indians. In the Globe and Mail of June 16, 1947, I find a short article dated Vancouver, June 15, Canadian Press, as follows:
The welfare and training branch of the Department of Indian Affairs will recommend that native Indians receive old age pensions and mothers' allowances, and that welfare officers be appointed for each Indian reserve in Canada, it was said tonight.
George Fellowes. schoolmaster on the Chilliwack reserve, about 50 miles east of here, said he had received that information in a letter from Col. B. F. Neary, head of the welfare and training branch at Ottawa.
I suggest that all the different organizations that are in any way connected with Indians realize the terrible poverty they have to go through, and I believe the government is remiss in its duty when it does not extend the benefit to the Indians. The minister should give a better reason than that which he gave just before the supper hour why the Indians are not included in the act.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: I wish to add a thought. Sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) states:
is not an Indian as defined by the Indian Act.
Under the Indian Act, all Canadian Indians on reserves are considered wards of the gov-

Old Age Pensions
eminent. The manner in which the governments of Canada have fulfilled their obligations to these wards can be debated later, but studies of the living conditions among these people reveal that a large majority of them are living in a shocking state of want, disease and poverty. I have made a study of conditions among them, and I can say that, especially among the aged Indians, the problem is a severe one. In Norway House I saw an aged blind widow on a reserve who had to go every couple of weeks to an agency to get a small ration of flour and salt, scarcely enough to keep body and soul together. The extension of the benefits of this act to the older Indians would be one of the greatest acts of humanity we could perform at the present time, and I know of no group who are in greater need. I know the officials of the department would welcome this. I believe the Canadian people would support this move if they really knew the conditions among the Indians. It has been proved further that members in every party on both sides of the house would support it.
I think the clause should be deleted for another great reason. It draws one more line between the Canadian people and this group of 130,000 people who are placed on reserves, a minority people who have been segregated on these reserves and relegated to an inferior position. That should not prevail in Canada.
I believe the Canadian people will support the move to raise the Indians to higher standards and give them an opportunity for a fuller life, but this clause widens the gulf and there is plenty of evidence to show that these people do not trust the whites who have placed them in that position. They have reason to distrust the whites on account of their actions in the past, and at this time particularly such a move as has been suggested would be the part of statesmanship toward a people who are potentially great. In Canada we claim that all the people have the rights of the democracy, and it is shameful that these people should be placed in a position where they have very little opportunity for redress, practically no voice, and very little in the way of an appeal against the injustice under which they may suffer or think they suffer.
I plead with the minister to consider carefully the withdrawing of the provision to which I have referred. If he will do that it will form the basis on which these minority people can start to build up their trust, and it will restore faith on the part of these people in Canadians who have relegated them to a position of inferiority.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The point discussed tonight with regard to our Indian population is a problem with which, I am sure, every member in this house will have full sympathy. This bill can only deal with that class of Indians who are within the enfranchised group. A thorough study is being made by the Indian affairs committee, not only with regard to old age pensions for Indians, but equally with regard to the whole problem of the health, welfare and education of Indians. I know the hon. member for Davenport is greatly interested in that subject; he has discussed it with me. The government is looking with great interest to the work of that committee. What it proposes to do with regard to the Indians will be done at the right time in a special measure; and I think the problem should be dealt with as a special problem. We are studying the work of this committee in all its features. When the committee has made its report and when certain other studies which are being made, such as surveys in the field and the like, are completed, we shall be in a position to deal, not only with old age pensions for Indians, but with the broader aspects as well.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is one flaw in
what the minister has said. He said when they-and I understood that he meant the government-received the report of this committee which is now considering the Indian Act, they would deal with it. But they have already received an interim report recommending that the Indians get the old age pension. That was one of the questions I asked when I first spoke on this subject. I asked what consideration had been given to this report and why the government had not seen fit to implement it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The reason I have already given. We wi^h to deal with the Indian problem as a whole. The hon. gentleman is a member of that committee; and, as he knows, the problem is much more than that of old age pensions for the Indians. We intend to deal with the problem as a whole. This bill is merely an arrangement by which we provide assistance for the maintenance of the aged, through grants, as it were, made to the provinces, seventy-five per cent of which cost we assume and they assume twenty-five per cent. The Indian, on the other hand, is our full constitutional responsibility. It is in the light of that that we are following the deliberations of the committee, not only with respect to t'his one matter, but with respect to the whole matter of the health and welfare of Indians.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That was the story that was produced in 1945, when the resolution
Old Age Pensions

to give the Indians the old age pension was introduced. That was the story the government put up then, namely, that the whole Indian question was to be referred to a committee or a royal commission; at that time it had not been decided which it would be. Following the deliberations of that body, their entitlement to the old age pension, along with other matters, was to be settled. That was two years ago. I consider it extremely unlikely that this committee will finish its work, get its report in and have it implemented for another two years. In the meantime the Indians are suffering. I do not think it is good enough for the minister to rise and say, "As soon as we have studied all the broad aspects of this thing, we shall be able to make a decision." The very fact that this committee, which has now spent two years in studying the question, has made an interim report recommending that the old age pension be paid to Indians, should be good enough as far as that particular aspect of the question is concerned. I do not think it is necessary for the government to wait any longer before taking action on that particular phase. This excuse, as I would call it, which the minister has been putting up, namely, that we must wait for the committee to finish its work in order to consider the entire broad question, is an extraordinarily flimsy excuse, and one which he and the government should not for a moment attempt to rely on.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Certain aspects of the means test have, in my opinion, not been satisfactorily dealt with. I, of course, am one who believes firmly that the means test should be abolished just as soon as possible. One cannot be unaware of the fact that it would cost a great deal of money in addition to what is being spent already if we did abolish the means test. Perhaps it would cost twice as much; perhaps it would cost three times as much, or even a little more. However, there are certain aspects I wish to point out which I think should be considered.
In the first place, before the minister brought down his bill, the amount of outside income which was allowed to an individual was $89 a year for a single person. For a married couple it was $178. With the effect of the addition which the minister has made, plus the addition which has been made in the province of Ontario, the amount of outside income which is allowed is only $120 for a single person and a like amount for a married couple. In the case of a married couple the outside income which is allowed is actually less today than it was before the minister brought in his bill. That has come about in two steps. When the minister first brought in his measure a married couple would have been allowed to have out-

side income of $318 a year. But with the addition to the allowance made by the 'Ontario government, the amount of outside income which a married couple can have is $120 a year.
Mr; MARTIN: Are you not including the supplement as income?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Yes, I am including the supplement as income.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But you must not do that under the regulations. Supplements are not part of the income. It is not considered as outside income. I refer the hon. member to regulation 16 (c).


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Am I to understand that in the limitation on the total income of $600 for a single person and $1,080 for a married couple, you do not include the supplement? It is just the bare pension?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Regulation 16 (c) reads as follows:
In determining the income of any pensioner for the purpose of the act, the pension authority shall take into account the amount or value of all income and contributions, whether in cash or in kind, received by the pensioner, other than
(c) cost of living allowances or supplemental allowances paid by any province to persons in receipt of pensions under the act.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I have not a copy of those regulations. The minister was not able to get me one earlier in the day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I sent the hon. member one.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I did not get it. In the minister's introductory remarks on this bill I understood him to say that the limitations of income of $600 for a single person and $1,080 for married couple, which constitute an increase over the amounts previously obtained, included the pension. I inferred that it also included any supplement which the province might make. In Ontario a person will now be receiving $40 a month; that is, $480 a year. How much outside income will he be allowed to receive in order to bring him up to the maximum of $600 for a single person?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not the details from the provincial government; but, as I said this afternoon, it will depend upon whether the extra $10 over and above the $30 amount is paid as pension or supplement.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I want to be clear on some of these things.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not responsible for statements issued by a provincial government. I have not yet had before me the full details of the Ontario plan.

Old Age Pensions


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It makes a tremendous difference to your act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is something over which I have, no control. That is a matter which is within the jurisdiction of the provincial government.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Why does the minister not get on the telephone right away and1 find out, because it will affect the revenues and everything else?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a matter which is under provincial jurisdiction.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Has the minister asked for the information yet?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Regulation 16 (c) allows a province to make a supplement as large as it wishes, without affecting the position under the bill. Section 16 (c) is one of the regulations passed, not only by this government, but by the nine provincial governments late in November at the meeting of the interprovincial board.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: But there is an effective limit of $600?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This applies only to the pension, plus income as defined in the regulations, excluding provincial supplement, as I have said.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I must say I am very much confused between what constitutes pension and what constitutes supplement. I do not think anyone in the committee knows which is which.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the agreements we shall conclude with the provinces they will name the pension, as they may under section 2 of this bill. The supplemental allowance, if any such is paid, will come within the purview of section 16 (c), which includes quite a number of things: mothers' allowance; family allowances paid pursuant to the Family Allowances Act; pay allotted or assigned by a member of the naval, military or air forces of Canada, serving on active service, where no dependents' allowance has been awarded in respect of the pensioner or the spouse of such pensioner; direct relief in an amount approved by the pension authority if paid out of moneys provided only by the municipality or the province in which the pensioner resides, or by both; casual gifts; contributions other than for ordinary maintenance to pensioners who require special care; any amount received by a pensioner in receipt of a pension in respect of blindness under the act for the purpose of obtaining the services of a guide. These items received by the pensioner are excluded from
the calculation in determining the income of any pensioner for the purposes of the act. I think my hon. friend will see the significance of that and the impressive proportions it might reach.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: In connection with the amount of $3, call it supplement or pension as you wish, that Ontario has been giving in recent years, is that pension or is it supplement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is supplement; it is outside the income.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That does not come into the calculation of the maximum under the old limits?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: And we do not know the position in regard to the $10 recently announced by the Premier of Ontario?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot say any more than I have said.


John Horne Blackmore: Before we get too far away from the discussion of the Indians, I should like to say just a word or two on that point. I have had the privilege of being a member of the joint committee on the Indian Act for two years. My interest in the Indians has always been great, but it has been tremendously increased as a result of the work of that committee. I wish to say just a word in support of the proposition that Indians should receive the old age pension. I do not think the explanation given by the minister is at all satisfactory, and I want to associate myself with the able remarks of the hon. gentlemen who have already taken part in the discussion of this matter, and to say once more that the Indians should be given the old age pension right away. Too many Indians are growing old and will die before we get around to taking care of them by all these measures the minister has mentioned. It will take probably twenty-five years to get the whole Indian population rehabilitated to the point where the aged people will have the chance our white old people now have. What are they to do in the meantime?
Just to show that there is considerable feeling among people who are in a position to be good judges on this matter, I should like to quote two or three statements from briefs which have been submitted by bodies of people whose opinions should be given some respect. The United Church, after having a good deal of experience with the Indians, had this to say in their brief:
The United Church is of the opinion that there is no reason why the Indian people should not participate in any old age pension scheme
Old Age Pensions

set up by the dominion government; and is of the opinion that, in the administration of the scheme, the same conditions should apply as in respect to the old age pension scheme generally, with such modifications as may be necessary to meet the difference in status of the _ Indian people-that is to say, without provincial contributions.
The Roman Catholic church, after having wide experience with the Indians, as everyone knows, had this to say:
It appears to us both fair and desirable that this phase of social legislation-
They were speaking of old age pensions.
-should be extended to the aged Indian who would thus be assured of a definite amount for his declining years of life.
A great many Indian groups presented their case before the committee; in practically every instance those people asked for the old age pension. They asked this simple question: Why should we not have the old age pension? Is there any reason why we should not have it? I have not been able to find that a satisfactory answer has been given to that question. They should have the old age pension; and, as I said before, I want to join with those who have advocated that they be given it.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I wish to say a word or two about section 8 (a) (ii), which is in section 4 of this bill. That section reads: ... if such person
(ii) has resided in Canada for the twenty years immediately preceding the said date or if he has not so resided, has been present in Canada prior to such twenty years for an aggregate period equal to twice the aggregate period of absences from Canada during such twenty years . . .
As I see it, the two parts of that clause do not coordinate at all. The first part deals with the question of twenty-year residence. The second part deals with the period prior to twenty years. If a person has not been here for twenty years, then the twenty-year period has nothing whatever to do with him. For instance, if a person had resided in Canada for fifteen years before reaching the age of seventy, that person would have to wait for another five years before he could get his pension, because the second part of the clause does not work in with the first part at all. Perhaps the minister would explain it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the clause is satisfactory. The law officers believe so, and they think it satisfies what we had in mind. It will admit to pension persons who might have lived most of their lives in Canada but who, because of absence from the country for a number of years in the latter part of their lives, say between the ages of fifty and

seventy, are at present debarred from pension. We all know of many such cases among older people living along the United States boundary, who perhaps go to that country for a few years; and, not having lived here continuously for twenty years find themselves barred. This provides a way to overcome that anomaly if the applicant can show that for every day of absence during the twenty years, he had double the period of residence in this country before the twenty years. In this way we are enabling a great many people who have lived here, worked here and paid taxes here, to get the benefits of this legislation in spite of their absences during that twenty-year period. I think this will commend itself to the committee.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not think this clause says that at all. The two parts do not seem to coordinate. They are quite separate; one has to do with the period of twenty years and the other with the period prior to the twenty years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right; that is what we intended.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: But a person who lived here for fifteen years before reaching the age of seventy will have to wait for another five years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, provided that in the period before his seventieth birthday, that person lived here for a period of ten years, which would be twice five; then he would be able to qualify.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not think the clause says so.


Solon Earl Low: I believe the minister has done a good job in changing that qualification.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I thank the hon. member; that is the only bit of encouragement I have had today.


Solon Earl Low: May I now ask the minister to say whether or not any move has been made to reach reciprocal agreements with other British countries, namely the other members of the commonwealth, for the payment of pension to their citizens who may come to Canada or our citizens who may go to their countries?


Paul Joseph James Martin: An exploratory conference met in London on May 15. It has not concluded its work, and will not conclude it until some time later, too late for us to deal with the matter in this bill.


Solon Earl Low: I am sure the minister knows that a good many old people have come to Canada from British countries who cannot

Old Age Pensions
make application for pensions because no agreement for reciprocal payments has been made.


John Oliver Probe: Like the hon. member for
Peace River, I should like to make the minister smile by saying one word of approbation about the measure we are discussing, but I cannot think of one thing to say at the moment and I know he will excuse me for not being eulogistic. I have not spoken on this bill either in the resolution stage or on second reading, and I do not propose to take up much time of the committee. However, there are a number of things in connection with .section 4 which have not been covered and which, I think, give me an opportunity to speak.
I wish to preface my remarks by saying that there is unquestionable disappointment in my riding over the measure the minister has seen fit to present. The amount is considered inadequate, and there is disappointment over the fact that the government is still paying only seventy-five per cent of the pension up to $30 a month. They are disappointed over the age at which the benefits start and they are disappointed also over the provisions for supplementary income. There is, further, a definite disappointment in regard to the heavy administrative cost to the provinces, incurred on account of this provision. If that provision were eliminated it would not cost the Canadian people anything.
The minister has said that a supplementary income of $240 would be allowed in the case of a single pensioner without a deduction from the maximum payment which the dominion government is prepared to make. In that connection I should like some clarification on three points. In Regina a programme has been instituted by the provincial government to build shelters for older citizens and that programme is being extended this year. Undoubtedly this shelter will be given to citizens who are receiving pensions at a nominal cost. Does the minister propose to assess the value of shelter given as supplementary benefits by my province as income? Undoubtedly this will be true also of other provinces which may adopt the same programme.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Could we wait until we
get to section 8, regulations, which deals with that sort of thing?


John Oliver Probe: I am quite prepared to let
that rest at the moment, but the means test is being discussed and I thought I would bring up this matter at this time. I am suggesting it to the minister and he can answer it on that section if he desires.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will.


John Oliver Probe: I would ask the same
question in regard to medical care provided for pensioners by provincial or other authorities.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not counted as
income.


John Oliver Probe: That is fine. Then a provincial government may supplement the $30 provided. jointly by the dominion and the province? To my mind, the present means test is a deterrent to an industrious or thrifty older citizen trying to make some income.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the very question
the hon. member for Rosedale asked. If the province pays a supplement over the $600 it is not calculated as income. I have said that three times. It is a most important point.


John Oliver Probe: I am afraid I did not get it. Perhaps I am a little thick in the head like the minister said he was this afternoon. I should like some information on the cost of administration of the Old Age Pensions Act. This section gives the government authority to pay seventy-five per cent of a $30 maximum pension payable jointly by the province and the dominion, but nowhere in the bill is there any reference to the cost of administration which, I imagine, is considerable.
This afternoon the minister presented a table giving the cost of pensions to the federal government and the provinces. I had a similar table from the Labour Gazette which I intended to quote. The Labour Gazette of May, 1947, indicates that from the inception of the Old Age Pensions Act the total dominion government contribution has been just under $424,000,000. I am inclined to compare that with the annual interest charges paid by this government and, when I do that, I submit that we really have not done very much for which we can take credit.
Right here perhaps I can hand the minister one bouquet. He is asking for only $54,006 for the administration of old age pensions and pensions for the blind. It is quite evident that the cost of administration of old age pensions across the dominion far exceeds that amount. Could the minister indicate the annual cost of the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act, how much is paid by each province and how much by the federal government? I feel quite certain that the provinces are contributing a great deal more annually toward old age pensions than is indicated by the table which the minister was good enough to place on the record this afternoon.
Old Age Pensions


Paul Joseph James Martin: The total cost of administration for all provinces is SI,004,234.32 as of the last date. Under the agreements the cost of administration is paid entirely by the provinces. The figure I have just given is broken up among the provinces as follows, and I shall give only round figures:
Alberta	 $ 46,000
British Columbia	 105,000
Manitoba	 45,000
New Brunswick	 70,000
Nova Scotia	 88,000
Ontario	 251,000
Prince Edward Island	 11,000
Quebec	 316.000
Saskatchewan	 68,000


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is that paid by the federal authorities?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, by the provinces.


John Oliver Probe: Would the minister permit one question with respect to the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That could come under section 8.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I should like to revert to the subsection dealing with Indians in order to make one comment. I was not on the Indian affairs committee and I shall be very brief. As I understand it, the interim recommendation which the Indian affairs committee made will not be carried out in this bill. The minister stated, if I understood him correctly, the government purpose dealing with the Indians in a comprehensive manner and do not consider it appropriate to deal with them in this bill. That may or may not be right; I am expressing no opinion, but, as matters stand now, people of the Indian race over seventy years of age get a mere fraction of what they would get if they were entitled under this bill. If that is correct it is shocking to me that we should allow this bill to go through without some interim arrangement being made for the Indians. It means that we are dealing with voters and ignoring the non-voters, and we may well have a situation which our own committee has said is a shocking one. I understand, from what the minister said, that the Indians will not be dealt with this year and, it has been suggested, perhaps not for two years. It is not right for people like ourselves to allow that situation to happen.


Mr. CASE:: I wish to say a word on behalf of the Indians because they have very little opportunity to speak for themselves. As the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has said, they do not vote; they have no franchise. The minister has admitted what is, of course, a fact, that the Indians are the wards and the

responsibility of the federal government. The government having admitted that, it seems a downright shame that it is neglecting practically its only direct responsibility in this matter of pensions. The Indian affairs committee approved an interim report in favour of. old age pensions for the Indians, and subsequently delegations of Indians complimented the committee on having rendered the Indians this service. They said it was the finest thing we had ever done. I can imagine, therefore, the disappointment and frustration which will be bound to prevail amongst the Indians in Canada when they find they are not to receive this recognition. I appeal to the minister not to wait until the committee's exhaustive report is made available to the house, because I am only now beginning to appreciate the length of time it is bound to take, and to leave the Indians long in doubt as to their future security in their advancing years is not fair to them.
I would remind the minister that we have now in the Indian affairs branch a complete administrative set-up to make whatever contribution parliament decides to make by way of old age pensions to the Indians. There are representatives on practically every reserve, inspectors for the various provinces and a complete staff of officials, and it seems to me that this would be the ideal moment, in this particular year when Canada is celebrating the eightieth anniversary of confederation, to make this contribution to the welfare of the first citizens of this country. 1 do not believe it could be done simply by striking out the phrase "is not an Indian", because that is repeated elsewhere in the bill. I believe it could be done by introducing a supplement, and I am sure, from the sentiments expressed here, it would be approved rapidly if it provided for the Indians only $20 a month. It would give these unfortunates some sense of security. They are now receiving a pittance of only $5.60 a month to supply themselves with food and clothing and fuel. They have their shelters and they are not subject to tax. We know from experience how much the family allowance has been appreciated by the Indians. It has made a contribution to their educational and general welfare, but the aged Indian is being neglected. They are our oldest citizens. We have only about 130,000 Indians all told, and the number of them seventy years of age and over cannot be very large. Parliament should not be satisfied to prorogue without making some provision for these oldest of our citizens. They are expecting the pension because of the publicity that was given to the interim report of the Indian affairs committee and if

Old Age Pensions
nothing is done for them they will be greatly disappointed.


Mr. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: So far in this debate I have not had an opportunity of expressing myself one way or the other. Now that we are on section 4, which deals with the amount of the dominion's contribution and defines the persons who are pensionable and the allowable income, I wish to say just a few words.
First, I want to support the remarks of the hon. member for Lethbridge to this effect, that there is not a corner of this vast dominion which is not concerned in regard to this matter. Articles in the press of the country have stirred the minds of both our young people and our middle-aged as well as our aged citizens. The young people are stirred because they know that old age is inevitable, that some day they will be old, and on account of the lack of an adequate old age pension policy certain sacrifices and demands will be made upon them which are the concern of the state. The middle-aged are of course, concerned because they know that old age is approaching them all too rapidly, and the aged are, of course, concerned because they are in need now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I just want to point out. Mr. Chairman, that what we are doing now is dealing with the principle of the bill. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. gentleman who is speaking for the first time on the bill, and I hope he will not misunderstand me, but I think, as minister piloting the bill, it is my duty to say, that we ought to have a discussion of the specific clauses of the bill, not just general statements which should have been made on the second reading. I suggest that there is no sense in moving the second reading and going into committee of the whole, unless we observe the rules. I would call that to your attention, sir, with great respect.


James Herbert Matthews: If the minister had waited long enough he would have found that I would be discussing the very clause before the committee. I have been thinking about a small group of old age pensioners in my constituency. They are members of the old' age pensioners' association of British Columbia. I know these people. I know the background of their lives, and I am wondering how I am to go back to my constituency and face these people and) tell them that this government is asking them to live on 81 a day. That I believe is pertinent, Mr. Chairman, to the section we are discussing.
Who are these people for whom we are pleading, today? It has been emphasized
again and again in this debate that they are the pioneers who have made Canada what she is today. It has been pointed out in the debate that Canada is one of the richest countries in the world, and one of the best countries in the world to live in, and I agree with all of that. But I still feel that Canada, which made such splendid showing in her war effort, can do more than this bill does for our old age pensioners. As a boy I was always taught to respect old age. I believe that one of the best wavs of estimating character is to watch the attitude of any boy or girl upon the street towards people of advancing age. If we want to honour old age we shall try to be concerned about how our old people are to live when they come to the twilight of their lives.
I believe that we should remove the stigma of charity from our old age pensions. During my forty-two years of life in this dominion I have heard some very hard things said in Canada about expecting one to live to the age of seventy years before one can become eligible for the old age pension. I have heard some hard and bitter things said about the means test. That, too, is involved in this section. I am of the opinion that if a Gallup poll were taken across the Dominion of Canada today there would be an overwhelming expression of opinion that the means test should be abolished forthwith.
One thing, of course, is interesting in this debate on aid age pensions, and that is that it cuts across all party lines. Everyone is agreed that we should do all that is humanly possible for our aged citizens, especially when we look at the advanced cost of living. It has been rising from day to day, and I personally cannot see much prospect of improvement in this regard. Statisticians may produce their charts to show just how much such and such a plan would cost the country, but I should like to point out to the committee tonight that the amount for which we are asking for our old age pensioners is nothing comparable with the cost of battleships which we built during the war years and sank on all oceans of the world. I have not heard it said in the debate so far what these old age pensioners are supposed to do with this money. Suppose we give them S50 a month at the age of sixty-five, as we are asking the government to do. Will they put it in a stocking? Will they hoard the money? I do not think so. This money will be spent in the stores of our country. It will be another method of distributing purchasing power. It will act like a shot in the arm to business. The country and the government will get the bulk of this money back again in taxes either directly or indirectly, because every time an old age pensioner walks
Old Age Pensions

into a grocery store to buy some article of food he will be paying in directly some of the taxes which will bring the money back to the government.
In a debate on this subject which took place on April 10, 1946, the then minister of national health and welfare, present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), placed on Hansard, at page 752, a chart of estimates of the cost of old age pensions for the years 1948, 1951, 1961 and 1971. He was striving to show that the government's proposals to the provinces constituted a burden which could be carried by the Canadian economy. He admitted on page 753 of Hansard that we could have pensions of the size advocated, namely, $50 at the age of sixty-five, but that the increased cost would have to come from one of three sources, either taxes or borrowing or printed money.
It is abundantly clear that the government's hesitation today arises out of the question, where is the money to come from? Several hon. members tonight have been generous enough to hand bouquets to the minister, and I am glad to say that he has appreciated them with a smile. I want to say that I feel rather sorry for him. Perhaps he might not enjoy my pity, but I think-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I appreciate the hon. member's interest.


James Herbert Matthews: I think he has just been handed a very difiiicult portfolio as Minister of National Health and Welfare. He is handling it intelligently, and with all due regard to his great task I think he is doing a good job. But when this bill came before the house I should have liked to see him go out to the country with a bold measure which would have given an adequate pension for our aged citizens, and I believe the country would have supported him in that move.
So far as I have read the articles in the press, there has been very little said. The press generally is waiting to see what parliament will do, and they will not have to wait very long.
There is a phrase in this section which deals with allowable income. It is my opinion that very few of our aged citizens will be blessed by receiving very much of this allowable income. Many of them have reached the stage where they are no longer of value on the labour market. Even if they were, work is not obtainable by them. I know that during 1941, under the exigencies of war, there was work for almost everybody. It was not a question of age or of youth. Even in my own constituency of Kootenay East in

1941 both old and young had no difficulty whatever in obtaining work of one kind or another, but the picture is entirely changed today. Women of the age of sixty are being let out of their jobs, and men of the age of sixty-five are being let out by government departments. I am concerned about how these people are to live between the ages of sixty-five and seventy when, under this bill, they become eligible for old age pension. Something should be done for these people and it is a government responsibility to see that those who, through no fault of their own, have not been able to accumulate anything for their aged years shall not be allowed slowly to starve to death as many of them are undoubtedly doing.
Before I resume my seat, I should like to say one word regarding our Indian population, since others have been doing the same. I do not know how many hon. members have ever had the privilege of living on Indian reserves. I suppose most hon. members have Indian tribes fairly adjacent to them in their constituencies, but I have lived on Indian reserves in British Columbia for over twelve years, and I know something about how these people live. If there is one thing that is needed, and one place in which the minister can bring some glory to himself-not that he is looking for that kind of thing-a place in which he can really do a first-rate job for the Dominion of Canada, it is to see that the old age pension is made payable to the Indians of our dominion just as soon as possible. They need it, if anybody does; and, as was hinted by the hon. member for Mus-koka-Ontario, if these people had votes, then they would be considered far more than they are considered today. But they have not the right to vote. They do pay taxes. They pay indirect taxes as well as other people, and because of that they have a right. The very fact that these are the original inhabitants of this country gives them rights, and this discrimination should be done away with just as speedily as possible. Give the old age pension to the Indian population as well as to the white population.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wish to say one or two words. I know the committee will generously allow me these few words. I appreciate what the hon. gentleman has just said. All the criticisms that have been heaped on me I expected and I accept them, because in a measure of this kind, where some think you are not doing enough and others think you are doing too much, naturally one is placed in a difficult position; but I want to say to the hon. gentleman that I have at least this to console me. Through this bill I have been

Old Age Pensions
somewhat responsible for bringing to 275,000 people in this country something in the way of improved living conditions. It may not be the kind of relief that all hon. members think we should have brought. But by this bill I am being the instrument-and that is the only way I will put it-of bringing to 60,000 people for the first time the opportunity of receiving the old age pension. I say that it might not be what all hon. members think it should be but in the light of all obligations, and in the light of great objectives which we seek as a government, I relish the fact that at least I have been able to help to do that much.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Do Indians who served in our armed forces and who have been enfranchised get the old age pension, or are they barred?


Paul Joseph James Martin: They get it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They will get it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, they do, under the act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the minister is wrong in that, because they are Indians under the act. These Indians are not enfranchised Indians. They have the right to vote by virtue of the fact that they served in the armed forces, but they are Indians under the act and are therefore disqualified.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They can become
enfranchised.
Mr. HARKNESS': No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Enfranchised to vote, but they do not get old age pension.


Paul Joseph James Martin: An enfranchised Indian can qualify.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: An enfranchised one, yes, but not one who fought in the armed forces.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They can apply and become enfranchised.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But then they have to give up all their treaty rights.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Angus MacInnis: They have done that already.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No. They fought for their country. One who has fought for his country is entitled to old age pension.
Mr. MaoNICOL: Has the minister put on Hansard the age at which pensioners receive old age pension in New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Great Britain? I believe it is sixty-five.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is sixty in New Zealand.
Mr. MadNLCOL: Can the minister put it on Hansard?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will.


Mr. BROWN:: From the trend of the discussion it would appear that the Indians are left on their own as they become old. I think it is only fair to the Indians, the members of the house and to the people of Canada generally that we should let it be known that to a greater extent the older Indians are given care and attention. I might cite one instance which is well known to many members of the house who were on the commission last fall. I refer to the case of an elderly Indian couple of Shubenacadie, Nova Scotia, who were .moved to a new home, a very comfortable place, which had been built for them. It consisted of two large rooms, one used as a livingroom and bedroom, and the other used as kitchen and diningroom. The government had supplied them with the essentials such as food and also, I believe, with certain animals such as a pig-


An hon. MEMBER:: A small deer.


Donald Ferguson Brown: I would not be referring
to my hon. friend in that instance, I am sure. I was speaking of a pig, a hog, and that would not apply either. This couple had chickens and, if I am not mistaken, a goat. They had various things that were essential to their livelihood, and in addition to that they were supplied with maid service in the person of a woman who came to their house two or three times a week to clean up and generally to look after these elderly people. These people were happy and were appreciative of what the Canadian people were doing for them.


George Hugh Castleden: Is that common among the Indians?


Donald Ferguson Brown: I am not in a position to say it is common. I am citing one instance I saw myself. Not having visited all the Indian reservations, I am not in a position to say, but I know this one particular case. We found other cases. It is true that they need the allowance; they should have it as of right, and I am sure that the government in due course will see that they do get it as of right.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why in due course?


Donald Ferguson Brown: I seem to have heard from some place in the chamber. Well, Rome was not built in a day, and neither was my hon. friend.


George Hugh Castleden: The Indians have been waiting for a long time.
Old Age Pensions


Donald Ferguson Brown: It is all very well to say that the Indians have been waiting for a long time. Certainly, and so have you and I waited for a long time for some things. If a thing is worth having it is worth fighting for and worth waiting for. Of course, when the opposition get through talking, probably we shall be able to accomplish a few things that are vitally needed by the Indian population. So far as I can see, there are many things to be accomplished on their behalf, and everyone who has any knowledge of the matter knows that. On the other hand, the Indians themselves, with the help of the government, have made great strides in the last few years, and that is something for which we should be grateful.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was surprised to see the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) coming to the help of the minister and whitewashing the treatment of the Indians in this country in what I thought was really a feeble way. As a matter of fact, all that talk of that kind does is to becloud the issue. The fact that there is an odd Indian who is reasonably well looked after has nothing to do with the general situation that the Indians are not receiving adequate help in their old1 age. The actual fact, which the hon. member knows as well as I do, is that the Indians receive the equivalent in kind-rice, flour, lard, salt, tea and so forth -of about $5 to $6 a month, depending on the locality in which they live. That is what they receive as old age benefits, and it is totally inadequate as nearly everyone in the house will admit. I do not think we should becloud the issue. We should look at the matter honestly and admit that we have not treated these people properly.
I am not putting the blame on this government but on all governments that have been in office in this country. I do not think there should be anything along the line of politics in this matter. There certainly is not as far as I am concerned, and at the present time we should look at the matter from the point of view of what is necessary for these old Indians. The minister, I am sorry to say, in replying to the hon. member for Peterborough West, also misled or attempted to mislead the committee-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why say "attempted"? Say "misled".


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not say he did it deliberately.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Take out the "attempted".


Douglas Scott Harkness: Unintentionally, I should have said. The Indians who volunteered or were conscripted., as some were, and served in 
the armed forces of the country during the war, by virtue of their service have the right to vote, but have no right to draw old age pension when they reach the age, because they are still Indians under the act and the statement that the minister made that they may become enfranchised is completely begging the question. It has nothing to do with the situation, which is this. A man who either volunteered or was conscripted for service and fought for the country is denied the right to old age pension because he is an Indian under the act, whereas thousands of people who had no service as far as this country is concerned and many of whom were conscientious objectors and refused to fight, are eligible for the pension. That in itself is one of the inconsistencies which cannot be defended. It is a complete inconsistency that that situation could exist.
Before I sit down I should like to refer to a quotation I gave from "King Lear", while I was speaking half an hour or so ago. When I quoted this tag the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, who is a great student of Shakespeare, immediately sent for a copy; and after I had resumed my seat he called me over and said, "You know, I think you have added a few lines to Shakespeare. I do not think you can possibly find those lines in 'King Lear,' " He said, "Here is the book", and he challenged me to find them. I have now found the lines, and they run in this way:
But mice and rats and such small deer Have been Tom's food for seven long year.
The quotation goes on-and I am sure there are many Indians who would subscribe to this part of it also, as far as the white people of this country are concerned-and ends in this way:
Peace, Smulkin; peace, thou fiend.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As the hon. member knows, these people are entitled to the war veterans' allowance if they have served in a theatre of war.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The war veterans allowance would not amount to as much as the old age pension in Ontario.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, more.


Donald Ferguson Brown: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I have been accused by the hon. member for Calgary East of whitewashing. I do not know what he means.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Only of attempting to white-wash.


Donald Ferguson Brown: I do not know what he
means by "white-wash". However I think

Old Age Pensions
that as far as this committee is concerned- and I have discussed the matter with other members of my own party-there has been relatively little of political partisanship. I do not know what it is, but there seems to be something about this vaulted chamber, the green carpet or the comfortable seats which affects us. In the committee we, of course, have a form of Hansard; but when we get into this chamber we seem to take a partisan attitude. If we honestly and sincerely desire to try to help the Indian to help himself, I think we should take the same attitude in this chamber as we adopted in the committee. Although I stand to be corrected by any member of any party, I think there was very little, if any, political partisanship shown in the committee. We had an honest and sincere desire to help, and I think that attitude should be continued in this chamber.


Mr. BURTON:: Will the hon. member permit a question before he sits down?


Donald Ferguson Brown: I shall be glad to.


Joseph William Burton: Is it not true that the
committee made a report recommending that the Indians be given the old age pension?


Donald Ferguson Brown: As I said yesterday, the
committee did make a report to this house requesting that the government consider the advisability of granting old age pensions to the Indians. I am sure that the matter is still being considered by the government-


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the Indians still go without it.


Donald Ferguson Brown: -and that at the proper time they will be granted the old age pension. However I am not the government. I cannot answer for the government.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In view of what the hon. member for Essex West has just said, I should just like to say this. In the committee considering the Indian Act our relations have been most amiable, and I am glad they have been. As I remember it, in that committee we agreed unanimously on a report which was presented in .this chamber and concurred in by the house. We agreed unanimously that the Indians should have the old age pension. As I say, we reported that to the house unanimously. That is why I am so greatly surprised to see the hon. member for Essex West rise and attempt to defend the fact that the Indians are not getting it.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I just wish to suggest to the minister that there are many more of us who would be interested in saying a word
on behalf of the Indians. The subject could be enlarged upon to take in greater scope than what has already been said. I do not want to delay the committee, but does the minister say definitely that he cannot consider anything in the way of a change in this bill?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. I said we were considering the whole thing in a comprehensive manner.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I know; but I mean at the present time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the best way is to deal with it comprehensively.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I wish to ask another question which has to do with income and the assessed value of personal property.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That comes under-


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I know what the minister is going to start off with. He is going to say it comes under another section.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It comes under section 8, on the regulations.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I know it does. In the drafting of this bill, have all these matters been fully considered and taken into consideration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Because these are injustices which have been perpetrated in the past.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They were carefully considered.


Percy Ellis Wright: I wish to ask the minister a question on this section; but, before doing so, I wish to state that I have listened patiently to a great many speeches and some very good arguments on this section and on the Old Age Pensions Act. Despite what the minister stated with regard to some people agreeing that this was too much, I have not heard that argument advanced in this house. I have not heard an hon. member state that $30 a month was an adequate pension. I have heard a good many arguments advanced to the effect that it was probably the largest amount we could pay at the present time, having regard to our obligations with respect to other social security measures. That argument may have some validity, but certainly there is no validity to any argument which contends that this is an adequate pension. We in this group have stated that we believe that $50 a month would be an adequate pension, having regard to our ability to produce
Old Age Pensions

in this country. I wish to state why we think that. If hon. members will cast their minds back to when the war started in 1939, they will remember that our national income in Canada was approximately three and a quarter billion to three and a half billion dollars. Today that national income is something over nine billion dollars.


An hon. MEMBER:: Eleven billion dollars.


Percy Ellis Wright: Well, it is at least two and a half times what it was before the recent war started. If we go back and look at the income earned by the farmers of this country, we shall find that in the six years prior to this war their average earned income was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $700. We shall find the same thing if we go back to the earnings of industrial workers. Today we find those incomes are approximately two and a half times what they were during the 1930's. If $20 a month was an adequate pension in the 1930's-and I do not think it was, but it was the pension which we were paying out of our total production in this country at that time -then I say that today, with production two and a half times as large as it was at that time, a fair pension to the old people of this country would be two and a half times what they were getting in the 1930's, or $50 a month. I would ask the minister if that is not a fair argument. Last year we exported from this country some $600,000,000 worth more goods than we brought back in. In other words, we sent out goods and services to that extent to help Europe and to build up reserves of pounds, francs and currencies in those other countries, which we did not use for the purpose of bringing back goods to this country, because in many cases those goods were not being produced in those countries. But I say that if our national income today is two and a half times what it was in the thirties, and if we can afford to export $600 million worth of goods more than we import, then we should be able to give our old age pensioners in this country better than $30 a month. I think that is a sound argument. I agree that we cannot feed our old age pensioners or clothe them with locomotives and materials of that kind, but we can feed and clothe them with goods we can bring back in return for those exports. I say that when we are capable of producing all these goods and services we should be prepared to share them with the old people of this country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to reply to what the hon. gentleman has said, because I think his question is important and I should like to bring this matter to a finality. My hon. friend

keeps speaking of a pension of $30. Technically that is correct under this bill, but one should bear in mind what flows from the passage of this bill. It means that in British Columbia, for instance, without the province spending one further cent per pensioner, the pension rate can be raised to $38.75. It means that in Alberta the rate can be $33.75, without the province spending an extra cent per pensioner. It means that in Saskatchewan the rate can be $33.75 without the province spending one cent more per pensioner. In Ontario, up to the day before the bill was introduced, it meant a pension of $31.75, but that province has now increased its pension to $40 as a result of this bill. One must bear those things in mind.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Why leave out
Manitoba?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the fact, and that is what I am discussing. Naturally I cannot meet all that my hon. friend has said, but I am pointing out the facts. It might be interesting to compare those rates, on the basis of current exchange rates, with the maximum pension payable in the United Kingdom, which is $273.13; in Australia, where it is $275; in New Zealand, where it is $334.88 and in Denmark, where it is $292.92.


Percy Ellis Wright: I agree that the pensions mentioned by the minister are those paid in the countries he named, but he has not answered my argument with regard to the share of the old age pensioners in the national income of this country. Perhaps the figures he has mentioned may be a fair share of the total production in those countries, and that is all I am arguing for. I was not going to mention this, but again the minister has raised the question of the different pensions being paid in the different provinces. But I notice that he has been careful not to mention the average pensions being paid in the maritimes. He has never mentioned the pension being paid in Nova Scotia, for example. He has always twitted us coming from the west, by asking, "What are you going to do now?"


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have mentioned the supplement in Nova Scotia; and I put a table on Hansard today.


Percy Ellis Wright: Just wait a minute. The minister is trying to get cooperation between the provinces and the dominion, and I say that in his arguments on the second reading of this bill he has done more to set up competition instead of cooperation than anything I have heard so far in this house this session. He is continually bringing up the question of what the provinces are going to do, and asking

Old Age Pensions
why one province cannot do as much as another province. That is the last type of argument the minister should be using if he wants to secure cooperation; and I must say I have been disappointed in the minister in that respect.	.


Angus MacInnis: I made a suggestion to the minister in regard to the wives of pensioners who were not eligible for pension in their own right. I suggested that he take the matter under consideration and perhaps be prepared to do something for this fairly large number of our citizens. Let us take the case of a pensioner seventy years of age or over. Very likely his wife will be somewhere between sixty and sixty-five, or at least under seventy. She will not be eligible for the pension until she is seventy years of age. If the total income of that man and wife, who have made their contribution as citizens to the welfare of Canada, is $30 a month, or $360 a year-it may be more in some of the provinces mentioned a moment ago by the minister, though even in British Columbia, which pays the highest pension next to Ontario, it would be only $35 a month, or $420 a year-does the minister suggest to this committee that any family can live on $360 or $420 a year? As the hon. member for Melfort' has said, the minister studiously avoided mentioning the maritime provinces. I think I read it the other day, but may I read again a short paragraph from the proposals made by the dominion government in 1945, specifically on the question of old age pensions? This is at page 37:
There are considerable variations between the provinces in respect of the number of persons obtaining pensions and the average amount of pension paid. Thus, in one province 28 per cent of all persons aged seventy and over were receiving old age pensions in 1945, and in another province 57 per cent. Likewise, the amount of average monthly pension varies from $18.63 per month in one province to $29.41 (including pro-incial supplement) in another.
Granted that this has been increased in the provinces where supplements are paid, it has not been increased in those provinces where no provincial supplement is paid. This is what I want the minister and the committee to listen to and understand:
Generally speaking, the need for pensions is, as might be expected, greatest in those provinces which are least able to finance such payments out of local revenues.
It is those provinces which are least able to pay the supplement from their local revenues, and which are not paying supplemental pensions, that the minister neglects to mention when he gives the pensions being paid. And it must be remembered that there is nothing in this bill which provides
that there shall be a pension of $30 a month. Let me read the section, so that I will not leave anything out:
Pursuant to an agreement made with a province under section three of this act, the government of Canada will contribute in respect of each person in receipt of pension from such province an amount not to exceed seventy-five per centum of thirty dollars monthly or of the amount paid by such province monthly, whichever is the lesser, for pension to each such person . . .
This clearly provides that in some provinces the pension will probably not be $30 a month, because those provinces will not be able to pay that amount from their local revenues.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What provinces?


Angus MacInnis: The provinces that are
not paying supplemental allowances now. It may not apply to all of them. I suggest to the minister that he take this matter into, consideration, that he take it up with his colleagues in the cabinet in order that some provision may be made for the wife of a pensioner who is not yet eligible for a pension in her own right, provided that the combined income is less than $1,080 a year, or even a lesser amount. I want to make it as easy as possible for the minister, but I think this is a case where something should be done.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I believe my hon. friend was out of the chamber when I said I was going to give it consideration.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the minister able to give an answer to the question I asked?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall deal with contributory and non-contributory schemes because in some countries they have both. To deal first with contributory schemes; in the United Kingdom it is sixty-five years for males and sixty years for females; in the United States it is sixtv-five years; in Australia they have no contributory scheme, and in New Zealand it is sixty-five years. To deal writh the noncontributory schemes, in the United Kingdom it is seventy years; in the United States, sixty-five years; in Australia, sixty-five years for males and sixty years for females; and in New Zealand, sixty years.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: It seems to have been the habit of various speakers tonight to express their personal feelings for the minister; but, after looking over what is being done, I think my feeling for him is one of sympathy for his having to defend a bill of this kind. I have for him the same feeling as I had for the Chairman of this committee today when
Old Age Pensions

he was looking for an argument to rule out of order the amendment moved by this party. One or two of the things which I had in mind have already been expressed, perhaps better than I could have done it, by the hon. member for Melfort and the hon. member for Vancouver East.
The hon. member for Vancouver East raised the point that a province is not under an obligation to pay a certain pension. The minister was asked about this before and, as I remember it, he said that that was not right. Someone suggested that a province might be paying a pension of $25 a month and could continue to pay it after this bill had been passed. I should like the minister to answer whether that is true or not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said that we had no power to compel any province to do anything, nor would this house ask us to do something which constitutionally we could not do. But I can say that every province is going to live up to the provisions of this bill.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The minister is stating what the provinces are going to do, and may I suggest respectfully to him that he has no right to say that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what I just suggested.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The minister is concerned solely with dominion matters. I think there has been altogether too much talk about what the provinces are going to do, particularly on the part of the minister. He made that his main theme when he was not talking about political things in the address he gave in introducing the bill. In doing that, I think he made a tremendous mistake, if I may suggest such a thing to one of his experience. The bland and cool assumption has been made that the provinces will continue something which they have been doing because the dominion has refused to live up to its responsibilties, and when I say the dominion, I mean the dominion government. But I am quite sure that some of the supplementary payments which were made by the provinces to eke out the meagre dominion grant were made on a temporary basis. They were made in the hope that the dominion would at some time live up to its responsibilities. Of course that hope was based largely on the expectation that there would be a dominion-provincial agreement. That has not happened, and we find ourselves in our present predicament. I think the minister was presumptuous in his speech to suggest that the provinces should pay a certain amount, He has done it again tonight. He

said that British Columbia would pay $38.65, or whatever it is, and that Saskatchewan would pay $33.75. The minister has no guarantee that the provinces will continue to make those payments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does my hon. friend know of any province that proposes to drop them?


Mr. HOMUTH:: That is not a fair question.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am not answering for any province. The minister asked the same question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in regard to Saskatchewan. That hon. member has nothing to do with Saskatchewan and neither hav% I. I am here on dominion business trying to represent the people of my constituency. I resent it greatly that the minister should raise such an issue. It is purely political. I should like to quote from page 4365 of Hansard:
Mr. Martin:	Does the hon. member think we
shall get action in Saskatchewan noiw?
I can tell the minister that there has been a great deal of action in Saskatchewan on behalf of the old people and the common people generally of that province. What is Saskatchewan going to do now? When the minister said in his lordly way that Saskatchewan will pay S33.75, let me remind him that he is not being fair. Let me remind him that Saskatchewan would be paying a great deal more than $33.75. They have their hospitalization scheme and the blue cards for the old people. Which represent a good many dollars in addition to what is being paid in cash with the help of the dominion government. Then there is the $5 that is being paid without any help from the dominion government. Then further on the minister is reported as saying:
What will Saskatchewan now do as a result of this bill?


William Henry Golding: Order. I hope that at this stage of the discussion the hon. member will deal with the section itself.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I submit that what I am saying has a direct bearing on this question. However I shall leave it by saying that, in my estimation, this is a very puny bill. May I say quite earnestly that I think the manner in which the minister has presented it has lessened his prestige as a minister of the crown. I am not saying that in a personal way; I mean it and I mean it quite sincerely.
I am tremendously disappointed in the bill.
I am tired of hearing this business about the provinces, and I am referring to the section which says that the provinces shall do so-and-so. I do not think it is up to a minister of this dominion to sav what the provinces shall do.

Old Age Pensions


Karl Kenneth Homuth: A few moments ago the minister quoted some figures to show what the pensioners in the various provinces of Canada would get, but he left the impression that it was to the credit of the dominion government that they would get that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Yes, you did,


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did1 not mean to.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You d'id. If the minister will read his words in Hansard he will find that that is a fact. The fact of the matter is that the pensioners will get $30 a month in some provinces because the provinces are doing it, not because the dominion government is doing it. I think that should be made clear. The words used by the minister would seem to reflect credit upon this government for those people getting $30 a month.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On the minister.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Yes, on the minister. There is no credit due to them. It is just that the provincial governments realized how meagre the pension is and the necessity of coming to the rescue of the old age pensioners.


Mr. BENTLEY:: I have been very patient all through this debate, not having said a word since April 24 on old age pensions. I think that is showing pretty good patience for this house when it is realized that some bon. members have been up and down at least half a dozen times. I wish to do like one or two others have done. I want to pay a personal compliment to the minister, because every time some hon. member suggests that something should be done for the Indians the minister expresses an expansive sympathy for the plight of the Indians. I think that is a commendable thing when the minister or anybody else indicates that he has such great sympathy, and his sympathy embraced the whole house. He said that every member of the house would agree with him in that sympathy. That includes the members on his own side. But unfortunately, when a practical concrete thing is suggested to make use of some of that sympathy then like Pharaoh's heart of old his heart hardens and the house is left trying to make bricks without straw. That is about what has been happening in the debate so far.
Another source of satisfaction to me tonight is that something has occurred during this debate that I have never before seen occur to such an extent. When we were discussing the orders in council under the omnibus bill in April and were dealing with sections referring to old age pensions I introduced the idea that
when the breadwinner of a family unit in this country becomes of pensionable age and qualifies for pension under the means test, his dependent spouse should also receive the pension. That idea has been echoed now by several members on the other side of the house and by quite a few members in all parts of the house, and I take great satisfaction from that because, since I have been a member of this house, I had never heard anyone make that suggestion until I introduced it on that day.


Mr. CROLL:: I gave you credit for it.


Thomas John Bentley: The hon. member for Spadina and the hon. member for Cariboo were the only ones who were kind enough to recognize my contribution and I thank them both heartily for that. You see, Mr. Chairman, I like recognition even in a small way.
What I really rose to do tonight was to ask the minister to make clear to me something which he has repeated time and again. I want to be sure that I have understood him aright, and I would ask him to correct me immediately if I state the position wrongly. I understood the minister to say that so far as this section of the bill is concerned, the amount of income allowed both through pension and through outside income will not be affected if the province supplements that income in some other way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right. I said that if the province wants to give a supplement in addition to the $600 it can do so.


Thomas John Bentley: Let us take a hypothetical case. We will assume that some wealthy province like Ontario, which not only has great natural resources of its own but is also able to extract a great deal from practically every other province-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Do not start that.


Thomas John Bentley: I am not accusing the Tories.


John Ritchie MacNicol: On a point of privilege,
Mr. Chairman, we hear altogether too many expressions like that from my hon. friend and his friends. He does not really mean that word "extract", and why does he make such a foolish statement?


Thomas John Bentley: Why does the hon. member for Davenport ask me such a foolish question in the light of the history of the western provinces?


John Ritchie MacNicol: We are always doing all we can for the western provinces, but expressions like the hon. member used can only injure the western provinces.
Old Age Pensions


Thomas John Bentley: I hope the hon. member will be able to convince some of his fellow citizens; he will never be able to convince us out there.
Suppose that some province decides that the minimum required is $60 a month, and suppose that that province is already paying its share of the $30, along with the dominion's share of the $30, and that the recipient of the pension has an outside income of $20 a month. That makes him eligible under this section of the bill. Suppose that the province decides that he needs $60 to live on and says that, over and above the amount they contribute to the allowable pension under this section, they will make further cash payments of S10 a month to the pension recipient.


Paul Joseph James Martin: By way of supplement.
Mr.- BENTLEY: The word "supplement" is not interesting to me.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It may not be interesting, but it is an important word.


Thomas John Bentley: We will use another word. We will suppose that the province makes a cash payment. WTe will not say "supplement"-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know we all want to save time, and if my hon. friend will allow me, if it is a supplement it comes under section 16 of the regulations which I have read three times, but perhaps the hon. gentleman was busy-


Thomas John Bentley: No, I listened to it very carefully.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It reads:
In determining the income of any pensioner for the purpose of the act, the pension authority shall take into account the amount or value of all income and contributions, whether in cash, or in kind, received by the pensioner other than cost of living, allowances or supplementary allowances paid by any provinces to persons in receipt of pensions under the act.
I made a pretty extensive statement on that earlier, and I think my hon. friend will find that I have met his point.


Thomas John Bentley: I listened very carefully. A supplement may be one kind of payment that would come under that. But let us assume another hypothetical case which almost had an opportunity to operate in this country if the legislation had not been disallowed. Suppose that a province were to decide that from the provincial revenue or credit, social credit if you like, they were going to use the social credit of the .province to pay eventually to their citizens $10 a month, but until the machinery got moving it would apply to just a certain section of their society to start with 
and that section became the recipients of an old age pension.. Assuming that nothing happened in the dominion to disallow their attempt to do that, and that they were sucess-ful in the attempt, would that be called a supplement which would be allowed in addition to the pension?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If it came within section 16, yes.


Thomas John Bentley: Now the minister has completely convinced me that he means what he says. Will he set the matter at rest so that, in the event of his retiring on pension of some kind in the early future and another minister taking his place, there can be no misunderstanding? Will he write that into the bill, so that nobody can ever be confused about it as I have been confused in the course of this debate? It is not in the bill now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is in the regulations.


Thomas John Bentley: The regulations are not before us in this bill. The regulations to be made under this bill come under another section which has not yet 'been dealt with, and the regulations which have been made under the act in the past may be changed by the regulations issued under a subsequent section of the bill or at some future day. I see an able lawyer nodding his head that I am correct. I can see that a good lawyer might argue successfully that the new regulations to be issued under another section of the bill or at another time did not permit this to be done. I should like to see it stated in the law, so that judges of the courts will be able to read and understand it when they hear argument from counsel.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I read section 19 (2) of the act:
No regulation by reference to which any agreement with a province has been made shall be altered except with the consent of such province or in accordance with the provisions of the regulations to which it has agreed.
All these regulations are made by all the provinces and the dominion sitting down together. At the last provincial meeting, for instance, in Ottawa in November, my hon. friend's province was represented by Mr. Valleau, Mr. White and Mr. Chalmers. They make these regulations, and subsection 2 of section 19 protects my hon. friend.


Thomas John Bentley: They make the regulations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is a matter of agreement between the nine provinces and the federal government.

Old Age Pensions


Solon Earl Low: Is that the fact? I understood that the regulations were made in the main by the federal government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. I just read the section.
I do not want to get into a discussion on this.
I am anxious to get this section through. We shall deal with the matter of regulations when we come to section 8. I want to cut the thing short if I can-


Thomas John Bentley: I appreciate the minister's desire to cut the thing short. I should like to cut it a lot shorter than it is. As a matter of fact the minister should have brought in his legislation at the early part of the session so far as I am concerned or at any time during the session, but I do not feel like passing this bill until I am convinced of the extent to which it operates. I have heard the bill described on second reading in various ways. One hon. member called it a munificent act; some other hon. member on this side of the house called it a dull thud. I think he was nearer to a correct description of it. But so far as this section does go, which grants $30 a month, I want to be sure that these other things are not to interfere with the full payment of that meagre amount of $30 a month. While the regulations may be, as the minister says, unchangeable, I should like to see it put somewhere in this bill, so that I can be utterly convinced nothing can happen to it in the future.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is in the act. It is in section 19, subsection 2.


Thomas John Bentley: We cannot go into that section here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the law now and it continues to be the law.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is the part which is not changed.
Mr. MARTINThe present bill deals with the amendments to the act.


Thomas John Bentley: All right. Of course, not having that before me and not having had time to look it up in Hansard, I shall have to take the minister's word for it that the regulation will apply and say that my inquiry in that regard must be deemed to have been satisfied for the time being. I shall read the minister's statement as we go along.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member can discuss it on section 8.
Mr. BENTLEY; Very well, and I shall remember what we have said here.
I wish to mention one other matter before I sit down. During the course of the debatt there was cross-fire between the minister and the hon. member for Vancouver East. In the
course of that cross-fire as I remember it, and as no doubt it will be recorded in Hansard, a week ago the hon. member for Vancouver East said that he could not see how the government or the minister could believe that $30 a month was an adequate living allowance. The minister replied that he did not believe it either. I think that is correct. Then the minister followed that up with the statement that not even $50 would be an adequate amount. If the minister really believed that, let me draw his attention to subparagraph (i) of paragraph (c) of the section under discussion at the present time. We find that the pension and the outside income that a pensioner is allowed to have must not amount to more than $50 a month. If he gets more than that his pension is reduced. If the minister meant what he said, that $50 is not enough; if there must be a means test, and if there must be a limit to the means test, then the minister should have allowed $660 or $720, or whatever further amount would have convinced him and the government was the proper amount for a person to live on as an income.
Then, we come down to subparagraph (ii) of the same paragraph which says:
. . . married to and living with a sighted spouse.
In that case their pension and outside income altogether may be $1,080 a year, indicating that in those circumstances the dependent spouse is not worth quite as much or will not cost quite as much to keep as an individual without sight, but if he is married to a blind spouse, it is $120 more, which is more like a living allowance. I hope that the people who come under subparagraph (ii) do not get tempted, if they are not too moral, to take their spouses' eyes out and send them out with a tin-cup to beg enough to make up the $120. There is that difference between the two. Certainly there does not seem to be any good reason why those under (ii) should not be allowed as much pension and outside income as those under (iii). I am not asking that (iii) be reduced to the amount in (ii) in these paragraphs, but that (ii) be increased in conformity with (iii).


Victor Quelch: I have one question to ask. 1 have listened to hon. members asking a number of questions, but very few questions have been answered by the minister, because apparently just as soon as one hon. member sits down another one rises for fear the Chairman will call the section carried, and therefore the minister has not had a chance to answer. Whilst a number of hon. members
Old Age Pensions

have been speaking, the minister has been busily wagging his head up and down which, I suppose, means he agrees with what has been said. If he did not agree he would be wagging it sideways instead of up and down. Therefore, if he agrees with half of what has been said tonight I would have thought he would have risen in his seat and moved a number of amendments.
The question I wish to ask is the one I asked when I spoke on the second reading of the bill. Various other hon. members raised it at that time, and various hon. members have raised it tonight. The hon. member who has just taken his seat raised it. My question is why the principle of the war veterans allowance has not been applied in this bill, so that a pension may be paid to both the wife and the husband, even though the age of the wife may be below seventy. After all, I believe the husband is supposed to be responsible for his wife. Therefore, when he reaches the age of seventy and receives $360 a year, if his wife is less than seventy the couple have to live on $360 a year, which means that they are living on $180 each, which is only fifty cents a day. I should like the minister to answer the question as to whether or not the government has given any consideration to applying the principle of the war veterans allowance to this measure.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Vancouver East asked me that question and I replied.


Victor Quelch: There is another question I should like to ask; maybe the minister has replied to this. Various hon. members have quoted budgets. I have heard them quoted from all sides of the house, but I have not yet heard the minister quote a budget upon which this $30 a month is founded. Has the minister filed a budget which he considers would provide an adequate standard of living for the people at the rate of $30 a month? The government must have a budget which will show what people can do on $30 a month. They may, first of all, have given consideration to how much it takes an individual to live on. I should like the minister to table now a budget showing how much can be spent on clothing, how much on housing, how much on food, and so forth, on a pension of $30 a month. I think we should have that budget tabled before we leave this subject.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not one. That question is one that cannot be answered blithely.
I do not say, and no one says, that $30 a

month is enough for a person to live on. I have gone through so much misery in my own life that I can say that.


Victor Quelch: You have not reached seventy years yet. Wait until you reach seventy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am talking about my own experiences. There are some hon. members who know that I know something about this. I will say no more than that. That is why I made my reply to the hon. member for Vancouver East. An old age pension in this country was never intended to cover the complete cost of living; it is a maintenance grant. That is all it can do.


Victor Quelch: Never meant for what?


Paul Joseph James Martin: To live completely on. That is what I am saying.


Victor Quelch: What is an individual going to do who has no other means of livelihood?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is another matter, and I say it is one with which I am as much concerned as anyone, and perhaps more than most.


An hon. MEMBER:: What did they do before?


Victor Quelch: A lot of them died young. I believe every member of this house could cite examples in his own constituency of people who died before they would otherwise have died because they did not receive an income which made it possible for them to obtain a proper standard of living. Are we to understand that the ministry is not prepared to place before the committee any form of budget which might enable these people to maintain a reasonable standard of living? I do not ask for a budget to give them an elaborate standard, but enough to maintain them in a state of decency.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said I would endeavour to deal with that matter.


Victor Quelch: When?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The next time we meet here.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In view of the fact that the minister has indicated that he will give consideration to some of the suggestions on this side, might we not allow- this section to stand until we meet again?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If the section carries there is no possibility of favourable consideration being given to the proposals made on this side of the house I might say that, had

Old Age Pensions
the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre carried this afternoon, it was proposed that we would proceed by asking that section 4 be further amended by deleting the word "seventy" from line 25 and substituting the word "sixty-five" and, also along the line of the argument put forward by the hon. member for Swift Current, that section 4 be amended by deleting the words "six hundred" from line 39 and substituting the words "seven hundred and fifty," also by deleting the words "one thousand and eighty" from lines 43 and 44 and substituting instead thereof the words "fifteen hundred"; also deleting the words "twelve hundred" from lines 47 and 48 and substituting the words "eighteen hundred".


Ralph Melville Warren: Why not have Saskatchewan do that? There is nothing to hinder them.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am glad the hon.
member for Renfrew North has raised the question he did. The other night I could not hear him in this part of the chamber. I am glad to discuss Saskatchewan's responsibilities with respect to the old people. We recognize that we live in one of the depressed areas in Canada. The dominion bureau of statistics support the claim that Saskatchewan and the maritimes are regarded as depressed areas as compared with Ontario and Quebec. The Minister of Justice will bear me out that when he was charged with the responsibility of raising money for victory loans he started one year by asking for $8 million in Saskatchewan, as compared with $240 million in the city of Toronto. He knew he had to get the money where the money was. He recognized that the people of Saskatchewan were as loyal as in any other part of the country and that we gave according to our ability.


Humphrey Mitchell: Will the hon. member say that all the people of Saskatchewan are in a depressed area?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am not saying that everyone in Saskatchewan is in poverty, but statistics indicate that Saskatchewan has, throughout this century, poured great streams of wealth into Montreal and Toronto, while we could not retain for ourselves that standard of living which we think we should have.


William Ross Macdonald: I think the hon.
member is going beyond the scope of the section. I did not interrupt him when he was endeavouring to answer a question, but I hope he will confine himself to the section.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I will conclude briefly
by saying that the minister has not performed a useful public service in raising the sort of
question which has been raised by the hon. member for Renfrew North, as he did the other night. The people in the provinces are sensitive. We cannot hope to compete with Ontario in providing high standards of social service and happiness for our people, and for the minister to play one province against another, one party against another, will, as the hon. member for Melfort suggested, make it more difficult to reach agreements regarding the important problems that are before the people. We are spending as large a percentage of our total provincial income in Saskatchewan in earing for the aged as any other province in Canada, and I am sure we are prepared to go as far as we can. The Prime Minister in 1931 emphasized that the old age pension is a national responsibility, and the minister of health and welfare has not made it clear yet why he is not going along with the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the proportion paid in Saskatchewan as compared with Ontario?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have not the figures, but I feel sure it is a high percentage of our total national income. I realize that the minister does not personally deserve all the criticism that is being expressed. When I first came to parliament he was very generous to me, and I spent some time in cultivating the hope that he might go along with us. He knew something of the problems of the people I represent-*'


Paul Joseph James Martin: Might we discuss the bill
rather than my political convictions?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like him to
agree to give the matter consideration over the week-end because, as the hon. member for Melfort has said and as I have pointed out, $50 a month would not place a great strain on the resources of the country. We cannot ask the provinces to carry these responsibilities. In Canada, during the war we demonstrated, while the Minister of Justice was at the helm in the treasury, that whatever is physically possible must somehow or another be made financially possible, and the provision of something better than $30 a month out of the resources of Canada must be physically possible and, therefore, must be made financially, possible. I would ask the minister to let this section stand.


Angus MacInnis: I would ask the minister again, as an earnest of his desire to amend this section, to let it stand. Once it is passed, it is passed and it will not be reopened. I think he should do that.
Old Age Pensions

I am now constrained to say something that I wanted not to say, but if I were a private member on that side of the house I would not be opposing this measure. I would have at least the decency to keep quiet about it, considering what we did when increasing our own emoluments. I can understand the minister fighting for the bill because it is a cabinet measure and he has accepted responsibility for it, but I cannot understand hon. members who, two years ago, voted themselves $2,000, and when anyone got up to oppose it shouted him down or attempted to shout him down. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, how this question can be easily settled, and that is by bringing the old age pensioners here and letting them vote their own pensions. That would be a way of settling the question.


Norman Jaques: The hon. member who has just taken his seat took the words out of my mouth. I voted for, or at least I did not oppose, the extra $2,000 a year paid to the members of this house, because I knew, I honestly knew, that we could not live and do the job on less.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I suggest that this is out of order.


Norman Jaques: Mr. Chairman, may I say that we have altogether too much-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would ask for a ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Norman Jaques: We have altogether too much of this "out of order". There will be no freedom of speech at all in this house if this goes on.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I think the discussion of previous legislation with respect to the allowance of $2,000 is not relevant to this section. I would ask hon. members to make their observations on matters which directly concern this section of the bill.


Victor Quelch: On a point of order, surely the committee must recognize the fact that we are now considering whether or not we can afford to pay the people of this country old age pensions at $30 a month or more. To the extent that we increased our own salary . by $2,000, we have that much less money with which to pay old age pensions. Therefore, for that reason, if for no other, it must be in order to discuss government expenditures along other lines which reduce our ability to pay old age pensions of $50 a month.


Norman Jaques: I have not criticized what we did with regard to our own emolument, and I have no intention of doing so. We did it- 
and I am quite sure everybody in the house was perfectly honest about it-because we all realized that it was impossible to live on the old indemnity in view of the increase in taxation and the cost of living. My only point in mentioning that is that, if we could not live on our indemnity, how can we expect thousands of our old citizens to live on $1 a day? I say they cannot live on that. And if they cannot, what are they to do? That is what I want to be told. How are they to live on $1 a day? It certainly is out of all reason to expect them to do so in this day and age. If there were any prospect that the amount would be increased next year, the situation might be different. But apparently this is to be more or less permanent. I understood the minister to say a few minutes ago that the pensioners cannot live on that amount, and they are not supposed to live on it. WThat are they to do, then? There are thousands of people who are too old to work or are physically incapable of obtaining work for which they may be paid. I appeal to hon. members not to worry about how it will be done. Anything physically possible and desirable can be made financially possible. I shall not say any more except make one final appeal to the government to think of these old people, most of them helpless, who are condemned to live on $1 a day.


Victor Quelch: In view of the fact that the question of the $2,000 has been raised, I am sure that all hon. members are extremely conscious of it. I am sure that every member at various times has received letters saying, in effect, "In view of the fact that you have voted yourselves $2,000, surely you will be willing at least to see that the old age pensioners of this country get a decent pension." When that question was brought before this house, I think most of us were under the impression that the government were going to carry out the promises they made during the war regarding a decent programme for a new social order. I think every hon. member in the house believed that.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Victor Quelch: At least I did.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon. member is not discussing this section. He is discussing the possibility of a new social order. That is not permissible at this time. I would again ask him to direct his remarks to the provisions of the section of the bill under consideration.


Victor Quelch: One of the-provisions of the section is for $30 a month, which we do not think is enough. As I say, last year we felt that we should probably be able to justify the

Old Age Pensions
$2,000 for the members of this house in consideration of the fact that we were intending to bring down a decent rate of pensions, not only for the old age pensioners, but for all people who are physically incapacitated.
There is one other point I should like to mention in regard to pensions of $50 a month. The question which is being continually raised is whether we can afford it. As I said on second reading, in my opinion we cannot afford not to pay oldi age pensions at a decent rate; we must do it, not merely for the purpose of providing old age pensioners with a decent standard of living, but for the purpose of helping to make our present system function. As the Minister of Finance has warned, the greatest danger we in this country face in the near future is lack of effective demand. One of the best ways of helping to build up effective demand in this country is to pay old age pensioners $50 a month. That is quite in order, and bears directly on this section of the bill. What is one of the best ways of helping to maintain effective demand in this country against the production of the country? We in this group, and I think all members on this side of the house, feel that one of the best ways of doing that is by providing decent social services; and old age pensions should probably have priority over all such social services unless it is decent pension to all those people who are physically incapacitated. I should like to ask the minister whether or not the government have given consideration to that question. I should imagine they have, because it is a matter which was raised iby the Minister of Finance and by the governor of the Bank of Canada, when they said the great danger we in this country are facing in the very near future is the lack of effective demand. Iif we cannot maintain effective demand against the production of the country, then our national income will fall. And if our national income falls, we shall find it that much harder to finance old age pensions of even $30 a month.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Victor Quelch: I am coming back to the
$30 a month.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member is
using the section under consideration to assist him in describing .what he believes is a proper fiscal system for Canada.


Victor Quelch: I cannot hear you, Mr. Chairman.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member is not talking about the old age pension bill. He is talking about some financial system or some
fiscal system, and he is using the section under consideration as an example, which I do not think is proper.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. May I ask the hon. member to discuss section 4 of this bill and not other problems?


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the committee if I did not make myself clear. I was not trying to discuss the financial system or the economic order. I was trying to discuss whether or not we could afford tc pay a decent pension, whether, instead of pa}ring $30 a month, we could not afford to pay $50.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. gentleman permit an interruption? I am sure he will accede to this request. Before the bill is through, if he wants to have an opportunity of discussing this matter, I will try to find 'some way of providing it. But in view of the long discussion, and in view of the fact that there will be an opportunity to raise the point he has in mind, would he mind facilitating the passage of this section?


Victor Quelch: There is just this point. If I can have the guarantee that at some stage in committee we can have a discussion on this question, I am willing to let it go at the moment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will try to answer it.


Victor Quelch: There is no use in waiting until third reading, because we cannot get an answer then.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will try to answer the hon. gentleman later.


Victor Quelch: Sometime during the passage of the bill through committee?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Victor Quelch: And at that time I shall be allowed to discuss the matter, and reply to the minister?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will try to answer.


Victor Quelch: I want that assurance,
because this is the only section upon which we can discuss this matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, there are others. I will try to answer the hon. gentleman.


Victor Quelch: The minister will guarantee that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will try to answer it.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the section carry?
Old Age Pensions


Mr. McKAY:: Before the section carries, I should like to ask the minister if he has given a reason why the pension for the blind-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the next section.


Percy Ellis Wright: Earlier in the day the minister was asked certain questions with regard to reciprocal arrangements with the other parts of the British commonwealth in respect of social security benefits. Did I understand him to say that a conference had been held between all members of the commonwealth, or just with Great Britain?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is a conference on in Great Britain which is to continue until the fall.


Percy Ellis Wright: Were the other parts of the commonwealth invited to participate?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Percy Ellis Wright: Have they participated in that discussion?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Percy Ellis Wright: I think it is important that we should have some such reciprocal arrangement at this time. A number of our people have married Australians or New Zealanders, or have brought home English brides, and there is no doubt that, as they become older, a considerable number of our people will wish to go to other parts of the commonwealth, perhaps to stay with relatives. This matter should be given consideration, and I suppose that will be done, in view of the minister's statement. I should have liked to see the minister able to make some definite statement as to how far these negotiations have progressed; but, in view of the fact that the matter is still under discussion, I suppose it would be impossible for him to go any farther than he has done tonight in this respect.
There has been a good deal of discussion as to the adequacy of the $30 a month mentioned in this section. I notice order No. 10 on the order paper, which reads:
Resolved, that it is expedient to present a measure to provide pensions or other superannuation benefits for senior appointees of the Department of External Affairs serving outside Canada and the wives, widows and dependants thereof.
I wonder if the government will consider $30 a month sufficient for those people, because apparently they consider $30 a month sufficient for our old people. In view of what we have voted for ourselves; in view of our generous treatment of returned men; in view of our very generous treatment of judges; in view of our very generous treatment of various [The Chairman.]
other civil servants in this country, it seems to me that we certainly should be prepared at this time to be a little more generous with our old people. I believe I have shown that out of the total national income of this country, which has increased to approximately three times what it was in the thirties, a fair share to our old people would be $50 a month. It seems to me that should be the minimum we can afford out of our production at this time. It is not asking too much that our senior citizens share with the rest of us on a fair basis. We have all increased our incomes in the last five or six years. There is not a member in this house whose income today is not two or three times what it was in the thirties.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Speak for yourself.


Percy Ellis Wright: If hon. members will be honest they will admit that.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are not all farmers.


Percy Ellis Wright: Very few members of this house, if they were in business and if they have been using a little bit of brain during this war to develop that business under the conditions which have existed in this country, have not doubled their incomes. That is shown by the national income; and if hon-members say they have not-


Humphrey Mitchell: Will my hon. friend answer a question? He is a farmer. Would that be true of the farmers in general; I mean the part about using their brains?


Percy Ellis Wright: If the hon. member had been here a few minutes ago when I was speaking he would have heard me quote the average income of the farmers of this country in the thirties, which was somewhere between $650 and $700 per family per annum. That average income has been increased until today it is something over $1,800 per family per annum, which is a substantial increase. The Minister of Labour must know that the average income of the working population of this country has more than doubled since the thirties. Take the average wage paid to workers in this country from 1932 to 1938 and the average wage being paid today. He will find that the increase is in approximately the same proportion as the increase in farm income. Look at the profits being made in this country. If you add up the total profits-[DOT]


Humphrey Mitchell: I asked the hon. member a question.


Percy Ellis Wright: Just a minute; then you can make your speech.

The Late Lord Bennett


William Ross Macdonald: Order. May I take this opportunity to remind both hon. gentlemen that we are discussing section 4, and that a general discussion of conditions and wages in Canada is hardly relevant.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am discussing the policy of the Canadian government-


Humphrey Mitchell: What my hon. friend said was this-


Percy Ellis Wright: Just a minute.


Mr. HACKETT:: May I remind the minister that it is eleven o'clock.


Percy Ellis Wright: I was reminding the minister that the profits made by companies in this country are many times greater than they were in the thirties; more than three times greater.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon. member for Stanstead has pointed out that it is eleven o'clock. Can section 4 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Oliver Probe: Did you rule that it was eleven o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


William Ross Macdonald: It is not for the Chairman to make such a ruling. If some member of the committee would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again I shall put the motion.


John Oliver Probe: I wish to refer to two statements in the auditor general's report, to supplement what has been said by the hon. member for Melfort with respect to our ability to implement something a little more generous than is at present considered in section 4. The government has set many precedents for pensions of a more generous nature than our senior citizens are getting. I should like to quote from page 24 of the auditor general's report, public accounts, 1946:
Order in council P.C. 7499 of December 28, 1945, transferred, as of January 1, 1946, the administration of-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise to a point of order.


William Ross Macdonald: I do not see that what the hon. gentleman is quoting is relevant to this debate.


John Oliver Probe: If you will just let me complete what I am saying-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

James Horace King: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, June 26, 1947.
iSir:-I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Thibaudeau Rinfret, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Friday, the 27th of June, at 5.50 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
-Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General It being five minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, June 27, 1947