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

Mr. THATCHER:: 1.	Has the government received a request from the Saskatchewan government, requesting that the buildings of the former No. 32 airport, south of Moose Jaw, be turned over to the provincial government for use as a mental hospital?
2.	If so, what action is being taken by the government?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: 1.	Yes.
2.	None. The matter was considered several times but the latest information received shows that this site is no longer required by the provincial government of Saskatchewan for a mental hospital.


SURPLUS CROWN ASSETS
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	Does crown assets allocation committee and/or War Assets Corporation keep a systematic record in classified form of all crown assets declared surplus to requirements by war plants, the army, the navy, and the air force?
2.	Has crown assets allocation committee and/or War Assets Corporation a systematic record in classified form of all crown assets rendered to scrap at Penhold, No. 2 T.S.U.?
3.	Is the record referred to in question 2 available to members of parliament?
iMr. Abbott.]


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Yes, when surpluses of crown assets are reported in detail. Certain surpluses, however, are reported in blanket form and records are built up as these are taken over by the War Assets Corporation.
2.	A systematic record of surpluses rendered to scrap at Penhold No. 2 T.S.U. is available.
3.	The record will be made available to the committee or subcommittee of the house to be set up to investigate war expenditures and matters of this kind.


WAR ASSETS CORPORATION-AIRCRAFT WHEELS
Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: 1.	Is it the policy of War Assets Corporation to sell materials only in the locality in which they are situated?
2.	How many aircraft wheels from Anson, Moths and Faireys have been sold?
3.	How many permits have been issued to buy such aircraft wheels?
4.	What is the total number of wheels for which permits have been issued?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	No. Surpluses are offered for sale firstly in the areas where they become available, except where they occur in sufficiently large quantities as to permit of national distribution.
2.	Anson	NumberNew	Main wheel tubes	
2Tail wheel tires	
946Tail wheel tubes	
659Used	Main	wheel complete	
789Tail wheel complete	
208
Tiger Moth
Used	Main	wheel complete	 231
Tail wheel complete	 75
Fairey Battle
New	Main wheel hubs	 16
Main wheel tires	1,970
Main wheel tubes	1,966
Used	Main wheel complete	 601
Tail wheel complete	 142
3.	No permit is issued or required for the purchase of wheels only. Permits covering 8,492 tires and 8,492 tubes have been issued as of September 30, 1945. Records are not readily available to show the actual number of permits issued, as a permit may cover one or more tires and tubes.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: What is the total number of employees who have been appointed since March 1, 1944, (a) for work not directly associated with the war; (b) for work directly associated with the war?


Mr. MARTIN:: The other day I suggested that because of the impossibility of answering

Questions
this question, it be dropped. The hon. gentleman was not in his seat at the time and I agreed to let the matter stand until he returned.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I am willing to have the question dropped if it cannot be answered.
Question dropped.


TORONTO POST OFFICE BUILDINGS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What action has been taken to turn over the new mail order post office building to the post office at Toronto?
2.	Who occupies this building at the present time, and for what purpose?
3.	When will the Toronto post office have the use of this building?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: In March, 1943,
representations were made to the Department of National Defence to vacate the city delivery building in order that it might be fitted up as originally intended for postal use. As a result of these representations, approximately one-half of the ground floor was made available. Further representations are now being made to the Department of National Defence that the remainder of the building be made available at the earliest possible date.


PRISONERS OF WAR-BOWMANVILLE BOYS' TRAINING SCHOOL
Mr. STEPHENSON:: 1.	Was the Bowmanville boys' training school, Bowmanville, Ontario, taken over by the government for a German officer prison camp?
2.	If so, on what date, and on what terms?
3.	What steps have been taken or are being taken to return this property to the school authorities?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	These premises were taken over at a nominal rental from the province of Ontario on Nov. 3, 1941, for the period of the present war and six months thereafter and beyond the six months period from month to month for so long as required. Dominion to pay all charges for maintenance and operation of the premises and to restore the premises on termination of the lease to the condition when taken over, reasonable wear and tear only excepted.
The dominion is to reimburse province for salaries of engineers and firemen, $6,175 per annum plus cost of living bonus, and to pay rental for temporary school buildings at rate of $1,260 per annum.
3.	These premises have been vacated and declared surplus to requirements of the Department of National Defence and the
47696-45i
crown assets allocation committee of the Department of Reconstruction has authorized the Department of National Defence to proceed with termination of the lease and restoration of the premises. Arrangements have now been made with the Department of Public Works of the province of Ontario for return of the property to provincial control and steps have been taken in conjunction with that department for the restoration of the premises to their original condition. It is expected that contracts for restoration will be called for within the next two weeks and that restoration should be started within one month.
VETERAN s' LAND ACT-BUILDING MATERIALS


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Has the board under the Veterans' Land Act a stock of, (a) building materials; (b) bath tubs; (c) other plumbing supplies?
2.	If so, what are the values thereof, and how many bath tubs are included in the stock?


Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	(a) Yes. (b) and (c) No.
2.	(a) Approximately $2,306,000; (b) and (c) Answered by No. 1.


INCOME TAX-REFUNDABLE PORTION
Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: With reference to the repayment of the refundable portion of income tax for 1942, and with reference to section 93 of the War Income Tax Act, (a) will the time limit for repayment run from 2nd September, 1945, or from some later date to be fixed; (b) if from some later date, when will such date be fixed?


Mr. McCANN:: The answer to the first
half of part (a) of the question is no, and the answer to the second half is yes.
The answer to part (b) of the question is that the date will in all probability be announced in the budget address of the Minister of Finance.


ARMY PERSONNEL ON EXTENDED LEAVE
Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	How many army personnel are on extended', leave?
2.	Are any N.R.M.A. personnel on extended', leave?
3.	If so, how many?	|


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	As of 12 September, 1945: 15,9S& all ranks (including N.R.M.A.).
2.	Yes.
3.	As of 12 September, 1945 : 8,567.
Questions


WARTIME HOUSING LTD.-STAFF-HOUSE FURNISHINGS
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What staff-house furnishings such as beds, [DOT]chairs, couches, linen, etc., have the Wartime Housing Ltd., sold or disposed of?
2.	From what staff-house did these articles come?
3.	What was the original cost of these articles?
4.	What was selling price?
5.	To whom were they sold?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	No staff-house furnishings have been sold or disposed of by Wartime Housing Limited except those transferred in bulk, at cost price, to the Department of Pensions and National Health and declared as surplus to our requirements through the Department of Munitions and Supply.
2,	3, 4 and 5. As follows:
From what staff house did	What was the	What was the	these articles come?	original cost?	selling price?	To whom were they sold?Women's hostel, Kingston, Ont., W.II.L. Project 3	$71,428 83	$71,428 83	Department of Pensions andMen's hostel, Peterborough, Ont., W.H.L. Project No. 4	57,184 14	57,184 14	National Health through D.M.S. May 5, 1945. Department of Pensions andMen's staff house, Amherst, N.S., W.H.L. Project No. 1	5,183 43	5,183 43	National Health through D.M.S. March 1, 1945. Transferred to cafeteria com-Staff house No. 13, Eastern Passage, N.S., W.H.L. Project No. 3	3,017 73	3,017 73	mittee, D.M.S. September 27, 1945. (Approval not yet received.) Transferred to Department ofStaff house and commissary, Eastern Passage, W.H.L. Project No. 5	5,508 34	5,508 34	Munitions and Supply, July 26, 1945. (Approval not yet received.) Transferred to Department ofStaff or bunk house No. 1, Sorel, Que	12,342 65	12,342 65	Munitions and Supply, July 26, 1945. Approved and passed to War Assets Corporation. 19/9/45. File 225 W.8 (22) Transferred to Department ofStaff or bunk house No. 3, Sorel, Que	6,310 42	6,310 42	Munitions and Supply, July 27, 1945. Approved and passed to War Assets Corporation. August 20, 1945. File 225 W.8 (18) Transferred to Department of
Munitions and Supply, July 27, 1945. Approved and passed to War Assets Corporation. August 22, 1945. File 225 W.8 (19)
Prince Rupert, B.C. New Glasgow, N.S..
Fort Erie, Ont	
Pictou, N.S	
Staff houses Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6
Inventories now being made up. Furnishings not yet declared surplus. So far buildings only have been declared surplus.

Questions


CANADIAN ARMY-PACIFIC
Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	What was the strength of the Pacific army, (a) on June 30, 1945; (b) on September 1, 1945?
2.	How many were volunteers from Canada who had no service outside Canada?
3.	Is this force now disbanded?
4.	If not, when will it be disbanded?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	(a) at 27 June, 1945 (closest strength return date) there were none actually posted to the Canadian army Pacific force; (b) on August 29, 1945, 24,055 all ranks were actually posted to units of the Canadian army Pacific force.
2.	Information not readily available and would entail a search of individual documents of all those on strength.
3.	Yes.
4.	See 3 above.


CANADIAN ARMY-CANADA AND OVERSEAS
Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	What was the strength of the Canadian army on V-E day?
2.	What is the strength of the Canadian army now?
3.	What is the strength of the Canadian army overseas; in Canada?
4.	Does the army strength figure include personnel on extended leave?
5.	If so, how many are so included?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	491,942 all ranks.
2.	As of 12 September, 1945 (latest return available)-426,135 all ranks.
3.	As of 12 September, 1945:	Overseas,
210,898; Canada and adjacent territories, 215,237.
4.	Yes.
5.	15,938 all ranks.


PEN HOLD, ALTA., AIR STATION
Mr. ASHBY:: 1.	Has the air force station at Penhold, Alberta, been closed?
2.	If so, what disposal is being made of the buildings and equipment?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Buildings are being declared surplus to R.C.A.F. requirements; (b) the majority of the equipment has been removed to R.C.A.E. equipment or repair depots. It is expected that all equipment will be cleared from this site by October 16, 1945.


SHIPMENTS OF FOOD AND CLOTHING TO ITALY
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Has Canada supplied any food or clothing to Italy and Germany during the last year?
2.	If so, what has been supplied and in what quantities?
3.	Under what terms were these goods supplied?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1 and 2. Canada has supplied no food or clothing to Germany during the past year through the Canadian mutual aid board or as military relief.
During 1944 and up to Aug. 31, Canada has supplied as military relief destined for the Italian area, the following items:
	Quantity	
Item	(L. tons)	Value
Wheat 		382.826 $24,883,690 00	
N ewsprint 	2,629	170,421 00Fielded Herring ..	1,254	211,960 00Dry Salt Fish	357	156,660 00Calcium Carbide ..	444	56,000 00Iron Catalyst	24	15,788 00Mining Supplies	(Explosives, Fuse	Blasting Caps) ..	various	165.000 00Carbon Paper 	3,000 boxes	2,205 00Candles 	. 215,000 only	9,500 00Clothing 	Nil	* Nil
Total Value at Seaboard.. $25,671,224 00
While the above items were called forward by the combined civil affairs committee (Supply) for the Italian area, the theatre commander may have diverted considerable quantities of the above items to the Balkans or perhaps southern France, and it will not be known for some considerable time of any such diversions. All of the above figures are in Canadian dollars at seaboard. Any additional charges for ocean freight would only be charged to Canada if shipment went forward in a Canadian flagged boat. In the past, 90 per cent of all Canadian military relief items have been carried either in American or British flagged ships.
3.	Under the terms of military relief, the Italian government or any government receiving any of the above stores will be presented with a bill for their cost and payment will be expected.
revision of statutes


Mr. DANIEL:: 1.	When is the next consolidation and revision of the statutes of Canada to be made?
2.	Is a special commission to be appointed for that purpose?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No decision has as yet been arrived at in respect of either of these questions.
Questions


VETERANS' LAND ACT-RETURN GRANTS
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	How many of the ex-s.ervice men, now on farms, are receiving awaiting return grants?
2.	How many of the ex-service men or women, who have entered other businesses, are receiving awaiting return grants?


Mr. TUCKER :: Return at October 2, 1945:
1.	807.
2.	374.


MINES AND RESOURCES-SEED GRAIN AND RELIEF ADVANCE ACCOUNT
Mr. BARRETT:: 1.	What is the present total of the seed grain and relief advance account administered by the Department of Mines and Resources?
2.	Of this, how much is principle and how much accrued interest?
3.	How much, (a) principal; (b) interest has been collected in each of the last three fiscal years ?
4.	How much was written off in each of the past three fiscal years?
5.	Upon whose recommendation and under what authority are write-offs made?


Mr. GLEN:: 1.	$6,139,105.14 .
2.	Principal, $2,525,263.99; interest, $3,613,841.15.
3.	(a) Principal: 1942-43, $15,312.47; 194344, $40,318.77; 1944-45, $70,693.70; (b) Interest: 1942-43, $8,408.58; 1943-44, $29,424.44; 1944-45, $40,884.15.
4.	1942-43, $116,375.12; 1943-44, $100,433.63; 1944-45, $148,052.18.
5.	Adjustments are authorized by treasury board, pursuant to section 1, chapter 51-17 George V, 1927.
The recommendations are made by the Minister of Mines and Resources and are based on reports obtained from seed grain adjustment boards.


CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
Mr. PEARKES:: 1.	How many conscientious objectors are still compulsorily retained in work camps in Canada ?
2.	How many of these are Jehovah Witnesses, and in which camps are they located?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	196 as of October 2nd, 1945.
2.	169 of these 196 are Jehovah Witnesses. They are located in the following alternative service work camps:
Petawawa forest experiment station, Chalk River, Ontario, 29; Riding Mountain national park, Wasagaming, Manitoba, 24; Jasper national park, Jasper, Alberta, 25; Banff national park, Banff, Alberta, 46; Kananaskis forest experimental station, Seebe, Alberta, 16; Kootenay national park, Field, British Columbia, 29.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	Has the War Assets Corporation or any department of the government disposed of any aeroplanes, corvettes, or other war equipment to the republic of Argentina or agency on behalf of Argentina?
2.	If so, (a) what type of planes, 'what quantities and what prices; (b) what number of corvettes, and at what prices?
3.	If not, has any government department issued any permits for the export of planes, corvettes, or other war equipment to the republic of Argentina? If so, what are the numbers in each case?


CIVIL SERVICE-ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTERS
Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	Since January 1, 1940, have any persons been appointed to the rank of assistant deputy minister other than by the civil service commission?
2.	If so, what are the names of such persons, and what salary is paid to each?
3.	By what method were each of these appointed, and what was the reason for the use of that method in each case?



PAYMENTS FOR TAXI SERVICE, SHERBROOKE, N.S.

Mr. STANFIELD:: What amounts, if any, have been paid by, (a) departments of national defence for navy, army, air; (b) Department of Labour; (c) Department of Munitions and Supply since September, 1939, to the Sherbrooke Taxi Service of Sherbrooke, N.S., and/or to Mr. J. E. Fraser of Sherbrooke, N.S., for taxis, repairs and other services and supplies?



ARMY AND R.C.A.F. EX-WAR PRISONERS OVERSEAS

Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	How many ex-prisoners of war of, (a) the. Canadian army; (b) the R.C.A.F., are still overseas?
2.	When is it expected that all army and R.C.A.F. ex-prisoners will be returned to Canada?
3.	For -what reasons have these men not been returned to Canada prior to this?



CANADLAN ARMY-UNITED KINGDOM- REPATRIATION

Mr. HENDERSON:: 1.	What units of the Canadian army in the United Kingdom have been designated for return to Canada before October 15?
2.	What units have already arrived in Canada?
3.	What percentage of each unit is made up of, or will be made up of, N.R.M.A. personnel?
4.	What number of each unit have served with such units for a period exceeding six months?

Questions as Orders for Returns



CIVIL SERVICE-DEPUTY MINISTERS

Mr. BRADSHAW:: 1.	What are the names of all persons who have been appointed to the rank of deputy-minister since January 1, 1944?
2.	What are the qualifications of each such person?
3.	What salary is being paid to each such person ?
4.	What was the salary paid to the predecessor of each such person?



FISHERY PRODUCTS

Mr. REID:: 1.	What was the total value of all fishery products, including fresh and salt water fish products, during each of the years 1930 to the end of 1944 inclusive?
2.	What was the total value for each province during each of the above mentioned years?
3.	What were the total quantities by weight, in pounds, for each of the various provinces, giving the total quantities and value of, (a) salmon; (b) herring; (c) halibut; (d) cod, of all varieties, during each of the years 1930 to end of 1944, inclusive?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. GREEN:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents in the possession of the government, dated during the past three years, referring to or concerning the issuing, extending or transferring of a permit for a radio station at or near Port Alberni, British Columbia.



CROWN COMPANIES

Mr. FRASER:: For a statement showing, (a) the names of all crown companies incorporated since September 1, 1939; (b) the purpose for which each such company was incorporated; (c) the present activities and operations of each such company; (d) the names, addresses, ordinary occupations and salaries of the directors and principal officers of each such company.
GOVERNOR general's WARRANTS


Gordon Knapman Fraser: For a copy of all governor general's warrants issued between January 1, 1944, and the present date.



CIVIL SERVICE-WAR DUTIES SUPPLEMENTS

Mr. BLAIR:: For a statement showing, (a) the names of all civil servants who have been paid a w'ar duties supplement; (b) the amounts paid to each; (c) the ordinary duties of each such person and the special duties in respect of which the supplement was paid.


Mr. MAYHEW:: Parts (a) and (b) can
be readily answered, but I would ask the hon. member for Lanark if he would redraft part (c), because it entails the investigation of
some 6,500 accounts. This would take a great deal of time and would involve considerable expense. Perhaps his purpose would be met if he would redraft part (c).


William Gourlay Blair: I understand that some of
the civil servants are getting considerable by way of additions to their ordinary salaries. This information is important. I will agree, however, to rewrite or to reword part (c) of the question.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Do I understand the whole motion is withdrawn?


William Gourlay Blair: No, just part (c).
Motion as amended agreed to.



DISALLOWANCE OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION- ALBERTA

Mr. COLDWELL:: For a copy of all reports of the Minister of Justice recommending disallowance of, (a) an act to amend the Limitation of Actions Act, 1935 (Alberta), disallowed March 25, 1939 (P.C. 676); (b) an act to amend the Limitation of Actions Act, 1935 (Alberta), disallowed October 4, 1939 (P.C, 2949);	(c) the Debt
Proceedings Suspension Act, 1941 (Alberta), disallowed March 27. 1942 (P.C. 2350); (d) the orderly payment of Land Debts Act, 1941 (Alberta), disallowed March 27, 1942 (P.C. 2350); (e) the Municipal District Act Amendment Act, 1941 (Alberta), disallowed March 27, 1942 (P.C. 2350); (f) the Limitation of Actions Act, 1935, amendment act, 1941 (Alberta), disallowed March 27, 1942 (P.C. 2350).



STEVENSON AIRFIELD, WINNIPEG

Mr. KNOWLES:: For a copy of any plans prepared by the Department of Transport since May 1, 1944, with reference to the enlarging of Stevenson field, at Winnipeg, or a copy of any alterations made in the plan tabled on the above date as sessional paper No. 287 of that year.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the order being called:
The following proposed resolution-Whereas agriculture has seldom received its fair share ot the national income of Canada;
And whereas the cost of producing all agricultural products varies considerably from year to year;
Therefore be it resolved,-That, in the opinion of this house and in the interest of the nation as a whole, the government be requested to set the prices of agricultural products at such a level that it will guarantee to the farmers of Canada at such yearly percentage of the national income as will have the same relation to the national income as the agricultural population bears to the national population of Canada.
Old Age Pensions
William Ross Macdonald: The first resolution under notices of motions stands in the name of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston). I must rule the motion out of order, for the following reasons:
The question of establishing a price structure for basic farm products either at levels of ninety per cent or at parity with other services and products was fully debated on amendments to the address which were negatived on Thursday, September 27.
The hon. member's motion deals also with the percentage of the prices of the same products. In.view of the extensive debate which took place on this price question, and the vote given by the house last Thursday, I am afraid that consideration of the motion of the hon. member for Bow River would be a repetition of debate.
Beauchesne's third edition, paragraph 245, page 104, reads as follows:
It is a wholesome restraint upon members that they cannot revive a debate already concluded; and it would be little use in preventing the same question from being offered twice in the same session if, without being offered, its merits might be discussed again and again.
Therefore I rule that this motion is out of order.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East) moved:: That,^ in the opinion of this house, the time has arrived when consideration should be given to amending the Old Age Pension Act by lowering the pensionable age to sixty years, by increasing the amount of the pension so as to enable the recipients to live in health and self-respect, and by deleting the income requirements for eligibility.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, it is with a great
deal of confidence that I rise to open the discussion on this resolution, because I know that members of all parties in this house are agreed that something should be done to improve our old age pension legislation. This feeling has been manifest in this house for a number of years, but nothing has been done. Whether the house is prepared to accept the resolution as it stands on the order paper is, of course, a different matter, because there may be disagreements on this point or that. These, however, can be brought out in the debate.
The resolution resolves itself into three parts. I am asking that the house approve three changes in our old age pension legislation. I am asking, first, that the pensionable age be reduced to sixty years; second, that the amount of pension be increased to enable 
the recipients of pensions to live in health and self-respect, and, third, that the means test be removed. Those are the three points that I wish to discuss.
I do not think I need labour the first point, that is, the lowering of the eligible age from seventy to sixty years. I am convinced that it is agreed throughout the country and in this house that this is something long overdue. I base, on various grounds, my request that the pensionable age be reduced. So far as I know, Canada is the only important country in the world that has a pensionable age of seventy years. Speaking to a resolution on old age pensions moved in the house in the session of 1938, I put on the record the eligible age in most of the important countries in Europe, in the different countries of the British commonwealth and in countries in other parts of the world. At that time the only countries that had an age limit of seventy years were some of the states in the republic to the south. I do not know whether the states that had an eligible age of seventy years at that time have since reduced the age limit to sixty-five years or lower. I would draw attention to the fact that in New Zealand, and I think in Australia, the eligible age in 1938 was sixty for women and sixty-five for men. However, this age limit has since been reduced in both countries to sixty years for both men and women.
It is a generally accepted policy in almost all of our large industries, and in small industries as well, that employees retire at sixty-five or even at an earlier age. In any industry where the work is heavy, very few people are able to carry on until the age of sixty-five. It is only in industries where people work with their brains rather than with their brawn that they are able to carry on very long after sixty years of age. In the government employ the retiring age is sixty-five. I am informed that there is considerable agitation to make the retiring age sixty years. Even from the government's own point of view, a person has outlived his usefulness after sixty-five years of age. After they have left their employment, whatever it may be, there are few who have put enough by to take care of themselves. Consequently most people must be looked after by some form of charity, by members of their family or by other means.
More than ever this is the age of the young people. Very few businesses will take employees for permanent employment who have reached the age of thirty-five years unless they have some particular experience or skill in a certain line of endeavour. During

Old Age Pensions
the depression years, when people over fifty lost their employment, they found it almost impossible to get back into any sort of permanent employment. Those conditions will come again-I do not mean the depression- and many people will find it impossible to get anything but intermittent employment. When we get back into normal production, when we resume our normal course of living, it will be more difficult than ever, because inventions have improved our means of production immensely during the last six years.
If we think in terms of social need and the social welfare of our people we will come to the conclusion that in order to provide security for those who are finishing their life's work and to provide opportunities for those who are beginning their life's work we must have a retiring age at somewhere around sixty.
At this point the question will arise, I suppose, in some hon. gentlemen's minds: Can the country afford to pay pensions to all its citizens when they reach the age of sixty? While the question may not be asked of me, members will no doubt be proposing it to themselves: Have we considered what the cost will be? My answer is that the country can afford to reduce the pensionable age to sixty, and I have considered the cost before answering that question. I will try to show what it would cost in money terms, although I do not think that money terms is the proper way at all in which to look at the question. However, as we measure things in terms of money, I will bring the question down to that basis.
If everyone on reaching the age of sixty were to receive a pension of $50 a month-I think that was the figure mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) a few evenings ago-what would the cost be? Of course any figures stated at this time would be only an estimate, and I do not want my figures to be taken as anything more than that.
From figures recently given me by the bureau of statistics I find that according to the 1941 census there were in Canada 1,174,966 persons sixty years of age and over, as of June of that year. If it is of interest to the house, the number of men was 609,466 and the number of women 565,500.
I also ascertained from the bureau of statistics the number of persons over sixty years of age who were gainfully employed at the time this census was taken, and I draw attention to this figure particularly because I think it is significant. Of the 1,174,966 persons sixty years and over, 410,336 were gainfully employed in industry or working for 47696-46
themselves, in farming or some other business. That means that there were 765,000 persons over sixty who were not gainfully employed in 1941. I also draw the attention of the house to the fact that in June, 1941, we were approaching the end of the second year of the war, when employment conditions were improving rapidly, and many persons sixty years and over had been absorbed into production who had not worked very much during the depression years. Let us say that today the number of persons in Canada sixty years and over is 1,200,000; the actual figure may be a little more or a little less. To pension or superannuate that number at $50 a month would require the sum of $720,000,000. That is a large sum of money, and before the war, before we began talking in billions instead of millions, he would have been a brave man indeed who would have suggested that we spend that amount on anything whatsoever, and particularly on social services. I remember that in the debate on a resolution similar to this in 1938 the then minister of finance, Hon. Mr. Dunning, referred to the enormous sums of $65,000,000 and $75,000,000. But to-day the government itself is proposing expenditures on old age pensions that will amount two or three years from now-I do not know exactly when they expect their proposal to go into effect-to $230,000,000 or $240,000,000 a year. That figure was mentioned in the dominion government's proposals to the provinces at the recent dominion-provincial conference.
Can we afford to spend that sum of money? But the real question is: Are we able to provide the people of Canada of sixty years and over with goods and services to the value of $720,000,000 annually? On our record during the last two or three years I think we can. I think there is no doubt about it at all. Further, that if we do not do something of the kind we shall have thousands of young men. and young women idle in this dominion.
I have at hand the average unemployment figure for 1938, when there were 401,000 persons unemployed in Canada in that year. There would be more people employed in some months than in others, but that was the average unemployment figure for the year. In 1939, the year the war began, the average unemployment figure was 388,000. When people tell me that we cannot afford to spend the amount of money I mentioned a moment ago to provide pensions for people sixty years of age and over, I would ask them to compute the wealth that three or four hundred thousand men and women could produce in the course of a year. What I am suggesting to-day, therefore, is not that we raid the

Old Age Pensions

treasury to the extent of $720,000,000 a year but that we so plan and organize the resources of Canada that we can produce that amount of wealth. When we resolve the problem into one of producing goods and services, instead of thinking of it merely in terms of dollars, it is no problem at all.
Hon. members, I suppose, have received the second annual report of the mutual aid' board, which was distributed at the opening of the session. This board has considerable authority behind it, and I would like to read to the house the names of the members of the board. Perhaps hon. members already know them, but in order that the solidity of the board may be appreciated, I will give the names.
The chairman is Hon. C. D. Howe, Minister of Munitions and Supply. Other members of the board are: Hon. J. L. Ilsley, Minister of Finance; Hon. J. G. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture; Hon. L. S. St. Laurent, Minister of Justice; Hon. J. A. MacKinnon, Minister of Trade and Commerce. Also mentioned here is "Hon. A. G. L. McNaughton, Minister of National Defence". I do not know whether he is still a member of the board; however, it really does not matter.
I will now quote two brief paragraphs from this report. On page 1 it says:
In it a dollar value is set upon the volume of mutual aid goods furnished by Canada during the past fiscal year. But the true worth of mutual aid can no more be estimated in dollars than can the heroism of allied fighting men or the labour of war workers. The real value of mutual aid is that it has been, and will continue to be, a factor in the victories of the allied armies.
So that it is the real value we have to consider in respect of the pensions we can provide for the people of Canada, in the same way as we provided mutual aid. Pensions will give security and comfort and a feeling of general well-being to those who have reached the age of sixty, many of whom would otherwise be in distress.
Turning to page 2 of the report, where it refers to the productive capacity of this dominion, I read:
A country small in population, Canada has for many years stood high on the list of the world's food-producing and industrial nations. But only during the war have Canadians learned for the first time the true productive capacity of their country. Month after month during the five and one-half years that this nation has been at war production records have been shattered.
Production records were shattered because we geared the production of the country to meet the needs of the war. But it was not difficult to shatter the production record of

the depression years. At times during that period, over half a million, yes, six hundred thousand people were unemployed. All the goods and services produced during the war, or goods and services of equal value, could have been produced during that period of depression if we had set for ourselves an objective and geared our economy to meet it.
Again let me say that, with the knowledge of what we can produce, and with the knowledge that what old age pensioners consume is not money, but food and clothing and shelter and fuel and medical care and all those things which go into the social life of each individual, we can provide these things; and surely we are not going to be held back because the figures, which after all are only the way we measure our production, seem to us larger than we have been accustomed to.
Keep in mind that I mentioned the sum of $720 million annually as the amount which would be required. In the mutual aid report to which I have already referred, on page 6, you will find that Canada gave to our allies loans and mutual aid by way of goods and services to the value of $4,500 million. I am not quite clear as to the period which that covers; very likely it was from 1941 to March 31 of this year. About one-third of that assistance was in loans which may be repaid, but two-thirds, or about $3,000 million, was an outright gift. I say again that if we can do that for others, surely we can do it for our own people, the people who produce Canada's wealth and have made of Canada what it is.
I would therefore urge hon. gentlemen to approach this question, not from the point of view of the money concerned, but in the same way as we approached war production. That is, if we have the raw materials,, the labour and the technical skill, the money can be found to put that raw material in the form in which it is required for ultimate consumption.
At about this point someone will want to ask: How are we going to raise the money to pay these pensions? I have no objection to such questions being asked. Shall we raise the money by taxation? Shall we raise it by what my hon. friends to the left call debt-creating loans; or shall we raise it by some other smooth, painless and perfect method? I am not very well versed in the matter of money, but I believe I have a more or less logical mind; I see how things operate, and I have tried to reduce this question to a simple formula, though without, I believe, over-simplifying it. I would say that if we are to provide social services we must make

Old Age Pensions
up our minds that they cannot be fihanced ultimately in any other way than by taxation. For whatever service is provided, if we pay a pension it is paid in terms of money but what it buys is the real payment.
Let us suppose that, instead of 12,000,000, our population consisted of 1,000 persons-I have reduced the proportions in order that we may grasp it-and that of these 1,000, one hundred were over sixty and consequently not producers, that is, under my proposal. Let us suppose that two hundred were under the age of sixteen, thus being also non-producers. We have therefore only seven hundred left. Now it is obvious to me that if the three hundred and the seven hundred as well are to be fed, clothed and sheltered and provided with the necessary comforts and luxuries of life, it can be done only out of the labour of the seven hundred who work.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Half of
them would be married.
Mr. MaeINNIS:	I should hope that there
would be half of them married, but the women also would be producing, in a sense. But I was going to go a little beyond that and point out that there would be others who would not be producers. There would be certain civil servants, there would be an army and navy, there would be an air force, there would be criminals, there would be people who would be looking after the criminals in gaol; and all these would be non-producers. Then we would most likely have a senate and there would be members of parliament. Most people take it that we are not producing very much, and sometimes they say we only raise hell. Whether that is true I do not know, but in any case to the extent that you do or do not, you are blamed. You are blamed by your enemies or by the opposition for creating too much hell and by your friends for not creating enough.
What I wish to call attention to particularly is that after all it is production that matters, and you cannot by any system of money manipulation that I know of take the burden of producing for the needs of the whole community off those who do the actual work. What we should be concerned with, therefore, in our social service schemes and also in our taxation is, first, what we get in return for our taxes, and second, how to increase the pool of production out of which taxes will be paid.
That brings me back to the statement I made earlier, that I am not proposing a raid on the treasury. What I am suggesting is that we plan and organize our economy so that we may produce, now that the war is over, wealth in the same measure as during the war, or in 47696-46i
greater measure; because we can produce in greater measure since we have more people to do it than we had during the war.
This brings me to my last point, namely, the abolition of the means test. I do not think that anything in connection with old age pensions is more criticized than the means test.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Or more unnecessary.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Or, as my hon. friend says, more unnecessary. I notice that the government, in the proposals made to the provinces, have recommended that the means test be eliminated for persons over seventy years of age. If the means test is undesirable for persons over seventy, then it is undesirable for persons under seventy. You cannot make the means test palatable under any system whatsoever. I will bring the government itself as my witness on this point. At page 37 of the proposals of the dominion government I find this, under the heading "Deficiencies of the Present Scheme."
The means test is generally recognized as undesirable after a certain age.
I do not know what bright young man came to that conclusion; he has evidently not reached the age of sixty-five yet.
It has been noted that about forty per cent of all persons of seventy years of age and over make application, satisfy the means test requirements and receive the pension.
That is to say, forty per cent of the persons of seventy years of age are destitute and consequently satisfy the means test and receive the pension. The statement goes on:
There is little doubt that a very considerable number in addition are not able entirely to support themselves, but are dependent upon their family, and refrain from applying for pensions because of the embarrassment occasioned by the means test.
Right there you have the argument, the complete argument, for the abolition of the means test in any old age pension scheme.
I notice that my time is almost up. I will conclude by just making one more point. With the proposals made by the government, I think we have made a little progress and there is a considerable social security legislation programme as between the provinces and the dominion; but what I think we should aim at is a coordinated social security programme that would provide for every hazard that a man in modern society is apt to meet.
If hon. members will allow me to refer to New Zealand, 1 note that they have accomplished that very thing. I have before me a list which I should like to read of the monetary benefits paid under the New Zealand social security programme: Universal superannua-
Old Age Pensions

fcion at the age of sixty-five; age benefit at the age of sixty-I should like to elaborate on this, but I have time only to mention each item without comment. Then they have invalids' benefits; widows' benefits, orphans' benefits; family benefits; miners' benefits; sickness benefits; unemployment benefits. Then there is an emergency benefit to meet any case not covered by those I have already mentioned, and besides that they have free medical services, which is a part of the social security plan, so that when a man becomes ill he immediately receives his free medical service. I say "free", but none of these things are free, because we cannot get things free. In New Zealand the social security services are paid for to some extent by the five per cent income tax. But a man receives medical attention, hospital care and nursing service, though the doctors are not cooperating fully as yet. Again, a man will get a monetary benefit if he is ill and unable to *work; his wife, if he has one, and1 the members of his family also will receive a monetary benefit. That, I think, is what we should aim at; and may I say that such a programme should be free from any taint of charity. It should come to every citizen as of right, because as a citizen he has given his services to the country.


Mr. P. E. COTE (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my agreement with the aim translated in the resolution moved by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), to better the situation of the old people by improving our Old Age Pension Act.
It is common knowledge that all workers in the community contribute to a greater or lesser degree to the economic welfare of the country, by the extent that they share in the production at large and by the amount that they spend for their own upkeep and that of their dependents. We can all agree, I think, that the citizen of this or any other country can no more be considered an isolated entity than a nation in this twentieth century can consider itself and act as though it were isolated from the rest of the world. True solidarity exists, and rightly so, between the individuals themselves on the one hand and between the individuals and the state on the other. The individual receives some benefit from the toil of his neighbours, and on the other hand he must discharge a responsibility toward those same neighbours. The same applies to the state, which receives benefits from the contribution of the individual to the economic and social life of the country. I feel that the state has an accumulated debt of gratitude and a responsibility to those
fMr. Maclnnis.]
individuals who have given their all in the development of the country, and that this responsibility should be discharged if and when that is found necessary in view of the particular needs of some of those individuals.
In a few words I should like to review what has been done in Canada for our aged citizens, what has been done by our government to come to the rescue of old people who are destitute or approaching destitution. Since the very beginning of this century the question of assisting our old people has occupied the minds of our social workers and members of parliament. An observer would find that in 1906 the first debate took place in this house in this connection. At that time a resolution was adopted expressing the desire of a majority of the members for the adoption of such legislation. During several sessions following that time similar debates took place with practically the same result. In 1924 a special committee of the house was set up, having as its particular duty to study the details of the whole question. That committee made a report to the house, but the report was not implemented until 1927, when the discussion was resumed and the first act of parliament passed, laying down the principle of old age pensions and calling the provinces into equal partnership with the dominion government on the basis of S20 a month, with a means test which has continued to the present time, although many other improvements have since then been made in that legislation. Under that measure the provinces were left free to increase the amount of pension if they cared to do so, but at their own expense. In the early thirties the proportion of the dominion's contribution was increased to seventy-five per cent and the share of the provinces reduced to twenty-five per cent, and during the course of the war the basic maximum pension was increased from $20 to $25 a month.
In reviewing the history of old age pensions in Canada an observer will note that throughout these years the principle of assisting aged people has been upheld more and more strongly. It has been considered that the state owed this much at least to those vho had contributed to the development of the country. One after another the mine provinces agreed on the principle, the last province coming in during 1936; and as a result we can say that the entire population is unanimously in favour of more and more improved old age pensions in Canada.
The resolution of the hon. member for Vancouver East calls the attention of this house to the inadequacy of the present system. I wish to compliment him on this

Old Age Pensions
thought, with which I fully agree. Among the constituents whom I have the honour to represent in this house, as among those in every district throughout this great country of ours, there are many cases of hardship among old people who are not treated with sufficient generosity under our present legislation. They are not getting a reasonable reciprocity for their past services to the country. To my mind, therefore, our legislation should be substantially improved.
The first difficulty which presents itself in a discussion in this House of Commons, however, is that we must restrict our debates and our legislation in the social field to matters concerning the welfare of the great masses of the population. That is so, and it will be so when the time comes to choose another basis for the fixation of the age limit in the application of the old age pension.
Parliament has not given any definition of old age or old age pensioners in any legislation of the past, or in any legislation still in force. The only thing by way of definition that the Canadian legislature has given has been a fixing of the age limit at a certain age. Up to now that age has been seventy years, and one must attain it before having a claim to any pension provided by the act.
This basis of payment has been of a somewhat arbitrary nature, because it has not yet been proved in Canada or elsewhere that old age should start at seventy, sixty-nine, or any lower age. The resolution before the house suggests that the limit should be set at sixty years. In doing so, the hon. member who sponsors the resolution lays down the principle that the retiring age of the average citizen in Canada has been set at sixty years.
I readily agree that there are unfortunate cases of hardship in the category of citizens of that age; but I do not feel that there are enough in proportion, to consider that the productive activity of the average citizen in a young and wealthy country, such as Canada, ceases when the age of sixty years has been reached.
If these cases of hardship affecting people of sixty years, or slightly more than that, are not considered an important proportion of the citizens of that category, then I consider that this matter of assistance and the rescue of others should rest primarily with the local governments, including municipal authorities and others.
I think a better case could be made in the advocating of the age of sixty-five years as a pension limit, so far as the dominion government is concerned. This age has been already recognized as a sound basis by the actuaries
of most of our insurance companies and by the important financial, industrial and business corporations. They have set the age of sixty-five years as that at which their insured people and personnel might retire on pensions. Then, the federal, provincial and municipal governments, have set the same age of sixty-five years for the purpose of their superannuation and retirement funds.
This government has already accepted the age of sixty-five as a fair basis in the proposals it made to the provinces last August. These proposals provided for a fair ground of discussion with the provinces for the improvement of the treatment already given to the aged people throughout the country. Those between the ages of sixty-five and seventy would be cared for jointly by the dominion and the provinces, through the payment of a maximum pension of $30 a month, representing an increase of $5 over the amount set out in the Old Age Pensions Act. The administration of the pensions of this group is to be left with the provinces and the means test is to be retained so that the pension may be reduced by whatever amount represents the excess income of the pensioner over $125 a year.
In this particular instance I have no great objection to the means test, because I consider that it will affect the intermediate group between those people who do not receive old age pensions, and those who, under the new plan, would be receiving pensions at seventy years without any means test. The dominion proposal calls for only a federal contribution to pensions paid to those seventy years of age and over, on a basis of S30 a month, and without any means test. This would be paid to all residents of Canada who have spent at least twenty years residence in this country. I consider that these proposals by the dominion government to the provinces would cover the situation very well.
This concrete proposal should be of great assistance to the provinces in their study of this question, and in their offer of any amendments or counter-proposals when they reassemble with the federal authorities in, we-are told, the not too distant future.
In view of the fact that the provinces are-now being consulted in this connection, and that a definite proposal has already been, offered by the dominion government, a proposal which represents a substantial improvement on the existing legislation, I submit that the resolution of the hon. member is premature and inappropriate at this time. It deals with a subject which should not have been brought into discussion until the conference with the provinces has been resumed,
Old Age Pensions

until those provinces have expressed their -views, and until there has been some measure [DOT]of accord with the dominion government and some reasonable and justifiable conclusion. Those conclusions, I presume, will be brought before the house and the country as preambles to further legislation the government will have to present, if it is to give effect to the results of the conference with the provinces.
There is another feature which I should like to bring to the attention of the house and concerning which I should like to make a few remarks before concluding.
Old age pensions, important as they may be, are nevertheless but a small fraction of the broader field of social insurance or social security. I doubt whether the approach to a question of this kind is well chosen, if it is not studied in constant relation to other measures of social security already on our statute book, or in process of becoming law.
After all, the responsibility of the state is not so much one of providing relief by itself as one of contributing and offering assistance to ensure a maximum of welfare and security to the citizens of the country. In a democracy such as ours the initial and the chief responsibility and initiative in that field should be left with the individual; and that responsibility is passed on from the individual, in a lesser degree, to his family, his social organizations, his municipality and his province. The dominion government should only lend a helpful hand, either by suggesting initiatives to local governments or individuals or by granting financial assistance. In implementing such a policy the central government should always keep in mind that its social legislation has for its aim the preservation and development of the human assets of the country rather than a tendance to reduce them.
Such measures as unemployment insurance, veterans' reestablishment, housing, labour legislation, health insurance, public health services, family allowances and others definitely tend to set a minimum of well-being and increase the expectancy of life and the productive activity of the individual. The more that measures like these can accomplish, the better it will be for the future of the country.
I am all in favour of old age pensions, but not as a direct aim of social security in itself. I favour them to the extent only that they can cover the majority of cases which have not been and could not be taken care of by other measures of social security, such as I mentioned a moment ago. Old age pensions should be considered as the last recourse of the state to remedy a social deficiency. Therefore I consider it a theoretical principle that

the state would be making more progress if circumstances could allow it to increase the age limit in proportion and to the extent that other social measures are developed, that medical knowledge gets closer to perfection and that public health services become more adequate. On the other hand, it would be a sign of growing deficiency on the part of the state if the age limit for old age pensions has to be constantly lowered. I do not share the views of those who measure the value of an old age pension scheme by the age which has been set as the limit, without due consideration being given to the general aspect of other social security measures in force in or contemplated by the country. In a word, the best Old Age Pensions Act is not necessarily the one which provides for the lowest age limit.
We have had the good fortune of witnessing a conference between the federal and provincial authorities last August where definite proposals were made to the provinces to help them improve their treatment of the aged. Other social measures were considered as well as the general financial relations between the provinces and the dominion. In view of this conference, in view of the fact that the provinces are actually working on these proposals and preparing amendments and counterproposals that they intend to submit on the resumption of the conference in a couple of months, I do not think this is an opportune or appropriate time for the House of Commons to consider amending a proposal which was made to the provinces last August.
The provincial authorities are highly authorized representatives of the people to deal with such matters as old age pensions, since this is a matter of their specific jurisdiction. Therefore, while favouring the improvement of our Old Age Pensions Act along the lines of the dominion proposal to the provinces, I am of the opinion that this resolution is premature and inappropriate at this time and should not be adopted.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, there is no more important matter for this parliament to deal with than the subject of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). To-day we had our first snow flurry on parliament hill. It is going to be a severe winter and many of our population will be without shelter, fuel and food. In 1922, the first year I became a member of this house I moved a resolution regarding this question because I realized the great problem this country faced in connection with its old people. Nothing was done that year. I believe the late former member for Winnipeg North Centre, the

Old Age Pensions
fatherun-law of the hon. member who moved this resolution, moved a resolution to the same effect. Both resolutions were sent to the industrial relations committee which was then functioning. Recommendations were made to tihe high court of parliament that some action be taken.
Because of the complicated constitution of this country with federal, provincial and municipal authorities, this problem has never been treated from the commercial and humanitarian aspects. It is the first duty of this national parliament to look after the health, comfort, happiness, welfare and prosperity of its citizens. We have not done that. We have wasted millions of dollars on material things, but so far as human values go we have left these matters largely to the municipalities and home authorities.
I remember when I was in the city hall at Toronto, where most of the social legislation of this country started, a pension scheme was set up for the police and fire departments. I was a member of the police commission at that time when the late Mr. Thomas Bradshaw in 1918 further developed this scheme. The scheme was extended to the school boards and to many other agencies. The whole question of federal old age pensions has been treated largely as charity in its administration.
In Ontario, since the turn of the century grand juries, in carrying out their ancient functions by visiting the gaols of the province, have urged better care of the aged. In almost every gaol they found poor people who were there simply because they were poor or had lost their jobs or were unable to work. Many years ago a house of industry was established in our city and we tried to take these poor unfortunate people out of the gaols of the province. I wish to pay a tribute to the Conservative government of Sir James Whitney, and to other governments of the province, for what was done along this line. But it must be remembered that most of the social work done was started first by municipalities of Ontario.
I am not prepared to say whether the age limit should be sixty-five or sixty years, but I do think something should be done immediately by the government. The resolution divides itself into three parts. First, there is the lowering of the age limit to sixty years; second, there is the increasing of the amount and, third, there is the deleting of income requirements for eligibility.
The third part of the resolution does not go far enough. It should eliminate what I call the means test. I know of one case of a newspaper man, one of the best loved men
who ever sat in the gallery here at Ottawa, who died and left a widow. She is in receipt of a small old age pension of $29 a month. This is paid partly by the province and partly by the dominion and is distributed by the municipality.
Some years ago an attempt was made to take care of the veterans of 1885 of the old northwest field force, of which this man had been a member. His widow was entitled to some pension in that connection, but what did they do? They applied the means test. She refused to take the measly pittance which was being offered to those who had saved Canada from being dislocated in 1885; she decided to stay with what she thought was sure, her $29 a month old age pension. With the housing situation as it is she finds that hhe cannot get a room or two in the city for less than $45 a month.
The present form of old age pension is nothing but charity and it is a disgrace to the Canadian people. On my first visit to the house the other day I found on the order paper a motion to spend over the head of parliament the sum of two or three billion dollars. The House of Commons is not consulted as to how that money shall be spent, and I was surprised and waited in vain for somebody to say something about it on the 11th of September. We voted billions during the war without due consideration. Yet think of the measly way in which we are treating the deserving old aged people of this countiy! Something must be done. This measly means test should be abolished immediately.
The city of Toronto had a large number of men in the street department whom it pensioned off at $12 a week, without any contribution from any government. The old age pension board in Toronto consists of five persons and they are very fine people. The actual number of Toronto residents receiving old age pensions as of December 31 of last year was 11,044, and the amount paid out in pensions in 1944 was $3,651,449.31. There were also pensions to the blind being paid to 252 persons as of December 31, 1944, and the amount paid in pensions for the blind was $83,778. The city is also required to provide free office space for administration purposes.
But here in Canada you are making a political football of the question. The greatest mistake made by the fathers of confederation was in providing for provincial legislatures. They were created largely for political reasons, not economic reasons, and in old age pension administration we have had nothing but charity for our people ever since with a means test.
Old Age Pensions

I do hope that something will be done about old age pensions at once. One of the reasons I came to Ottawa-I never come here looking for anything because I know I never would get anything-was to help support these humanitarian projects like the old age pension, sickness insurance, soldiers' welfare, and to spread nationally the gospel of these social services which started in the city of Toronto. I want to support all these measures that are related to the health and comfort and welfare of our people. That is my only reason for saying a word on this motion. We have a Department of Health and Social Welfare, presided over by the young minister from Montreal, which is supposed to look after everybody from the cradle to the grave and provide everybody with some kind of handout from the government treasury. One of the glories of the Victorian era was that the people kept the state. Now it is the state that is to keep all the people.
I commend what I have set out on this motion to the government. I do not know where the government is to-day; very few of them are in the chamber. The government spends millions of dollars without the authority of parliament; why cannot it do something about the old age pension now instead of waiting until next Christmas and then handing out relief? Something must be done immediately. I hope that other speakers will be heard from for five or ten minutes each, urging the government to do something now. I am not prepared to say whether the pensionable age should be sixty or sixty-five. But I do say that there should be no means test and that the list of persons eligible should be extended.


Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, exhaustive debate should not be necessary to convince the membership of this house of the desirability of giving unqualified support to this resolution. I propose this afternoon to make my remarks very brief, but my brevity does not come about through failure to recognize the absolute need for an immediate overhaul of the Old Age Pension Act; rather it comes as a consequence of my realization that on many previous occasions the members of this group have placed on the record, their views with respect to old age pensions, and extensive repetition is unnecessary.
An examination of the resolution before us reveals, as the sponsor stated, three things: first, not necessarily the demand but the request for consideration of lowering the pensionable age to sixty; second, increasing the amount of the pension to enable the

recipient to live in health and self-respect; and third, deleting the income requirements for eligibility.
I am convinced that if a vote were taken to-day on this resolution, ninety-five per cent of the membership of this house would support it. I say that because I well recall that about a year ago the question was extensively debated in this chamber, and I fail to recall any private member having spoken in opposition to the proposals which were then made. I do recall, however, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) suggested that the member who at that time was urgently demanding consideration of this question should place a resolution on the order paper or at least make a motion to the effect that these changes should be brought about. The minister knew that at that time it would have been utterly impossible for any private member to introduce a measure on which a vote of the house could be taken.
What is the situation as we find it to-day? The individual Canadian, worn-out, let us say, by the long straggle imposed by economic conditions, finds himself at the age of seventy unable to provide for himself and he makes application for pension. It is a well-known fact that he is looked upon in many quarters with pity, and in certain quarters he is looked upon as an outcast. Then he is examined, and I might add, with suspicion. If he can meet the rigid and severe qualifying regulations that have been established, including proof of virtual destitution, he is grudgingly granted what might well be called charity or a dole. I have yet failed to hear an argument to convince me that it is otherwise. It is a fact that there are hundreds, possibly even thousands, who never apply for the old age pension because they fear the inquisition which follows the application for pension. The whole thing does not finish when the applicant receives the pension. From that time forward he is periodically examined and questioned and checked.


Mr. BRACKEN:: And double-checked.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Right, double checked, and
investigated and even spied upon. Certainly the individual recipient's life is made miserable, and it is almost a fact that he can hardly call that life his own.
If I were to cite ten reasons for voicing objection to the old age pension provisions as we know them to-day I would include a number of the following:
In the first place I would say that those who sponsor and' support the present Old Age Pension Act fail miserably to appreciate the

Old Age Pensions
contributions made by so many of those pioneer citizens toward the development of this nation. Moreover, they fail to appreciate the fact that there are thousands in this country between the ages of sixty and seventy who by virtue of circumstances over which they have had no control are unable to earn a livelihood. It is a fact, and it was referred to earlier this afternoon that before the war men of forty, forty-five and fifty were regarded as being altogether too old for many of the types of employment which were available. It would almost seem that under the present system the government in effect are betting that the majority of our people will never live to be seventy. I charge that the present pension amounts which are paid never have and do not now bear any fair relationship to the cost of living.
It comes to my mind at this time that a year ago, during the debate to which I referred previously, the Minister of Finance indicated his belief that, since the cost of living in 1928 was higher than it was last year as reflected in the cost of living index, the pension which was received at that time should certainly provide more in the way of goods and therefore should be quite adequate. What he failed to indicate then was that when the scheme came into effect in the late twenties no one argued that the amounts paid were adequate to provide a decent standard of living for our aged pioneers. It is true that the figure was an arbitrary one. The arguments advanced were that it was somewhat new, that we must proceed with caution, and if conditions led us to believe that at some later date it would be necessary to increase the amounts, that would be done. I would say, too, in virtual condemnation of the present set-up, that it fails also to recognize the existence of a wife where the pensioner is over seventy and the wife is under seventy. This is what we have: a bachelor or a widower upon attaining the age of seventy years, or actually sixty-nine years and nine months, may make application for pension. If he passes all those rigid tests and meets all the rigid restrictions, he may be granted the maximum pension, which in certain oases is $30 per month. But if a married man becomes seventy years of age and is granted the pension, the authorities completely ignore the fact that he may have a wife under seventy years of age, because in the act there is no provision for making payments on behalf of the wife. A married man in his seventies with a wife in her seventies may get the maximum of $60 a month. Now I wonder by what method of calculation or reasoning it can
make sense to anyone that we should ignore the existence of the' wife if that wife is under seventy years of age.
I say that through our present pension system we fail to recognize the vast productive capacity of this country, and, as a previous speaker stated, that all these people are asking for is a fair share of Canada's production.
I would say, too, that the present scheme fails in another respect. It fails to recognize that if we, as members of the government have stated on recent occasions, are under a moral obligation to provide for the needs of the destitute in other nations, we are also under a moral obligation to provide for the aged pensioners of our own country, the needy of the nation.
This present scheme also fails to recognize, as do those who support it, the complete viciousness of the present means test. I have already said that scores of people have not applied for the pension, even though they need it in the worst way, because they fear that means test and its implications. Only within recent days I have had letters from three persons around the age of seventy-five who have stated, in effect, "We have not applied prior to this time because we did not want them meddling in our personal affairs, asking us why this son or this daughter does not provide for us. We have struggled on, hopeful of paying our way, but now we have come to the end of the road and it is necessary for us to make application."
The present pension system and those who support it fail to realize the effects which might develop as a result of our enabling many of these persons over sixty years of age to remove themselves from the employment stream. This was referred to earlier; I will not take time to elaborate upon it.
Another vicious aspect of the present provisions upon which I would lay particular emphasis is this. The scheme fails to recognize the existence of political misuse, because it is a well-known fact that eligibility and pension amounts are determined in considerable measure by administrative discretion. I would say that that is one of the strongest points of condemnation of the system as it is operating to-day.
In this country we boast, and justifiably so, of our great accomplishments. We boast of the real and potential wealth of this nation, and we boast about its being a Christian civilization. But I wonder if we are not sometimes just a bit ashamed to realize that hand in hand with our boasting we have on the
Old Age Pensions

statute books of our nation such a shameful piece of legislation as the present Old Age Pensions Act.
Certain objections have been raised with respect to the making of what might be called radical changes in the present provisions. It will probably be asserted that consideration is being given to a compulsory contributory scheme of old age pensions. I do not propose to take time to express my views about any such proposed scheme. But let me emphasize that while that may be something for the future, we are faced with a serious problem right now. A contributory scheme will not provide for those who are now listed among our needy aged pioneers. Let us indicate our seriousness and our sincerity about the future by making certain most essential changes to bring about immediate results, and let us make those changes at once.
Costs will be thrown in our faces, but it will be a weak and futile avenue of attempted escape. During this war we have astonished ourselves by what we have done as a people. Surely we are not going to say that certain changes in our present Old Age Pensions Act, to do nothing but grant many of our people simple justice, will now be impossible, especially in the light of our great accomplishments in the last few years.
With respect to financing, I should like to make reference to the words of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), not with the idea of engaging in any controversy over what he has said. I have already indicated that we are supporting the resolution, but I could not help thinking, as he referred to the method of financing, that in order to carry out the proposal he suggested for the distribution of our production it would be necessary to tax from our people every cent which they did not spend.
To-day the government of Canada does not tax from the people, though it comes very close to it, perhaps, every cent they have not spent, but the government borrows and plunges us into debt. We say that there is another method, and we shall have an opportunity at a later time to deal with it in this house. I will not therefore elaborate upon it at the moment. I say, however, that anyone speaking in opposition to this resolution to-day must be prepared to answer two or three questions if he hopes to be at all convincing: Why cannot and should not the eligibility age be reduced to sixty immediately ? Why cannot and should not the pension be increased in order to grant the security to which these people certainly are entitled? And a third question would be this: Why cannot and should not that vicious

means test be removed? I am of the opinion that no amount of political manceuvering and time-killing debate will solve our problem. The issue is clear, concise and definite. I urge that the government give this house an opportunity to declare itself on this issue this afternoon.


Mr. D. A. CROLL (Spadina):: In rising to speak on this question I realize that there has been some difference in the house as to whether the war is over or not. I think we are all agreed, though, that we are now passing through the transition period, at least in its first stages; and the productive machinery, the governmental machinery of the country and the outlook and trend are definitely from war to peace.
I agree with other hon. members in the house that the ultimate goal for all Canadians is social and economic security; but the path there, Mr. Speaker, is not strewn with roses, because to-day we have not only a multitude of new problems but also some old problems, and I am speaking of one old problem. I know something of this problem because I administered old age pensions in the province of Ontario as a member of the government, and under present changing conditions not only must we give consideration to the problem but we must do something about revising the Old Age Pensions Act.
It is only fair to say that the government have been aware of the problems. In 1943, by order in council, the amount was raised from $240 to $300, and in 1944 it was raised from $365 to $425 to pensioners.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The total amount allowed.


David Arnold Croll: Yes. But a more prominent place to-day must be given to old age pensions because it is becoming an acute problem. There are a great number of objections to the old age pensions act now on the statute books. The first one is the means test. Because it is unparliamentary I cannot say what I think about that test; but believe me when I say to the house that many worthy people in Ontario have never applied because it meant an investigation of the son; it meant an investigation of the daughter and the son-in-law; it meant an investigation of the man's life, and his pride did not permit him to admit, and he would not admit publicly, that he had lost the economic battle of life. He had further to face the humiliation of turning over to the government his small house as a charge against the money that the government gave him, which in effect brought the government in the final analysis a mere pittance, because after the man passed away the government always made a settlement with the

Old Age Pensions
heirs or executors, took whatever they gave and often forgot about it. But the government had to go through the motions. That is unworthy of a country like Canada and unworthy of this government.
So far as the age is concerned, I shall have something to say about that in a few minutes. So far as the amount is concerned, we must not lose sight of the fact that it has been raised from $20 to $25, and that is progress. But that is not the vital point. There are provinces in this dominion that pay an old age pension of $18.63 and there are provinces that pay as high as $29.41; but the province that can afford the $29 usually pays the $18 and the province that has the greater needs cannot afford it. Consequently, it must be a dominion responsibility.
We have this act and we must keep pace with the times. We are living in an increasing tempo of everyday life. We are living at an accelerated and very fast pace, and we in Canada have astounded the world with our scientific development. We are one of the three great powers in the world possessing some very important scientific secrets. In this country not only have we stream-lined production in factories, on the farms, in our forests and fisheries, but we are speeding up that production from day to day and the momentum will continue rather than relax.
Every one of us in the house, excluding the lady member, must remember the horse and buggy and mechanical days, but we must not forget that to-day we sit on the very fringe of the rocket and the atomic power age. The old age pension legislation fits well into the age of yesterday and, as the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) said, the procedure in this house also belongs to that age. The scientists have done a great job, particularly in the last six years, but as yet they have not found a way to make of the body a tireless machine; so the human body wears out. To-day the need is for youth, both in body and in mind, the youth that brings with it not only vitality but strength. In industry at the present time fifty is a questionable age; a man fifty years old has difficulty in getting into most industries. In industry to-day sixty is a difficult age and seventy is an impossible age. That "is the problem we have to face. At the present time there are some two hundred thousand pensioners who are not able to cope with the tempo of life or who are incapacitated and cannot maintain the Canadian standard of living. Peculiarly at this time we have an opportunity to do something about this problem, because by the hundreds of thousands young men are returning to the Canada which
belongs to them, to pick up the threads and weave the pattern of a life of happiness and security. During the war the oldsters were plying the tools which belonged to the young men. As has been said in this house already, these old people made a valuable contribution to the war effort. They left their homes; they did everything that was asked of them, and now the time has come for the tools to change hands, for the young men to take up the task. Yesterday I read an article in the Windsor Star, dated October 2 and headed "Older Men Stepping Out";
Many of the older men in some of the larger organizations in Canada are retiring now that the war is over. This makes vacancies by which others step up and there is a general reorganization.
So many men eligible for retirement within the last three or four years have remained on the job to fill in while the younger men were at war. Now, these younger chaps are coming back and delayed promotions are being given.
Most of the older men are glad to step out. They have been working hard and are tired. In their last active years they did more than when they were in the prime of their careers. They rose to the emergency and carried on well.
My submission is that we should permit the young men to work and create while the old men rest and enjoy life. We have heard a great deal about money. I expected some of the questions that were asked, but I think we ought to look at it from the point of view of whether or not this is a good investment, whether or not this is purchasing power. These old people spend their money; they are lucky to make it last the month, when they receive only $25 or even $30. In this house we placed upon the statute -books a law that has the absolute approval of everyone, that has caught the imagination of this country and that is the envy of our neighbours to the south. I am referring to the family allowances legislation, under which we invest in the youth of this country. At the same time we pay compensation to people who meet with accidents, at any age; but for the inevitable accident of life, old age, we make a pitiful allowance. People who look upon that as charity are mistaken. People who look upon it as a reward are mistaken. People who look upon it as a burden are mistaken. It is a long overdue dividend to the pioneers and builders of this country.
I think the time has come When not only the Old Age Pensions Act but other legislation must be revised in order to keep step with the times. It is true that in private industry some arrangements are made for pensions. Public enterprise also makes some such arrangement, although public enterprise has gone much farther in this direction. But a
Old Age Pensions

great many people are in neither of these classes at the present time. They have toiled through the sunshine of their lives, and now in the twilight I think it is the duty of their representatives to see that the clouds do not entirely obscure the sun.
My hon. friend who introduced the motion made reference to the government blue book, which contains a great deal of information. He read paragraph 1 on page 37, and I should like to complete the record. At that page the government places on record its realization of the deficiencies and makes a public confession, which is not a common thing for governments to do. They say they recognize the problem, and there it is; my hon. friends agree to that. But the government go farther and say, "This is what we think ought to be done:
In developing its proposals with reference to old age pensions, the federal government has given careful attention to the experience of other countries (in particular the plans and proposals now in operation or under consideration in Great Britain, the United States, Australia and New Zealand)-
That ought to make everybody happy.
-as well as to the economic and social conditions of Canada. In the light of this survey, it appeared that the following principles should be incorporated in the dominion government's proposals.
(a)	The scheme should be nationwide in scope and capable of immediate implementation.
(b)	Benefits should be paid at flat rates and -hould not in individual cases have to be related to individual amounts or rates of prior contribution.
(e) Provision should be made for more generous scales of payment and a lower age of eligibility than heretofore.
(d) To the extent that means-testing procedures may have to be maintained, they should be left as the administrative responsibility of the provinces, who are best equipped to deal with this problem.
Naturally I do not agree with the last point, although if it were left to the provinces I can assure the house that the means test would have gone out the window. It would have gone out the window when I had the department, and I think I can speak for those now in charge. That is progress. It is all very well to say it is only a step in the right direction; but when one reads farther and realizes that the government has as its plan a national old age pension to all people at the age of seventy and, in addition, a pension to those in need between the ages of sixty-five and sixty-nine, it seems to me it is not only a step in the right direction but a hop, skip and jump in that direction. True, it may not go as far as we should like, but we have to face up to it.
[Mr. Croll.l
The crux of the situation lies in the dominion-provincial conference. If we are to deal with these related problems, then we must have the complete, absolute and over-all right to collect income tax, to collect succession duties and to collect corporation taxes. And so long as the provinces will not untie our hands, we cannot write cheques for social services to the extent we would wish.
It is our business to create public opinion in that respect. I think the steps taken by the government at the present time are forward looking and realistic. However, I was completely impressed by what was said by the hon. member who has sponsored the motion. These were his words as I recorded them: "The government does not see its objective, and the government has not planned."
May I point out to him that at this particular time to act in a piecemeal fashion would accomplish only a limited objective. Not only must the government look at old age pensions, but it must look at health insurance and unemployment insurance. A resolution is now offered asking that this insurance be increased by fifty per cent. I have no doubt a number of us will have something to say when that matter is before the house.
Only a few days ago we discussed the question of further allowances to veteran settlers, a matter which will come before the veterans affairs committee. The government must look at these problems in the broadest sense- and not only the government, but each one of us. Those are the things we want. I do not believe we want to have them piecemeal. I believe that by our rising in our places, speaking about these problems and expressing our opinions the government will learn where we stand. Undoubtedly we must have a somewhat broader vision in these matters. If we have responsibility, then we also must have some power.
We must have the right to tax before we have the right to spend. Undoubtedly this is vital to the whole question at the present time, and I agree with it in principle. On the other hand, we must make certain that we view the problem in its widest scope, and as it is related to other social services. Then we must deal with it on that basis.
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln) :	Mr. Speaker, may I offer my word
of congratulation to the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) who has so ably presented views which, I believe, were based on actual experiences he has had, in more ways than one. I must say I was in accord with him when in a sense he criticized the

present administration for not having developed and improved the Old Age Pensions Act before this time. I am quite sure the hon. member will acquit himself honourably in this chamber. Those who have had earlier associations with him will agree that he will add much to the discussions in the days to come.
I can readily understand that the introduction of this resolution is only the begin-ing of much that will be said in the house respecting legislation for the care of persons who have reached the point where they are unable to support themselves. As the days and weeks pass it will be expected that the government will introduce something along the lines suggested in the resolution. In fact, already some notice has been given of future action. The hon. member who moved the resolution has developed in to-day's debate a discussion which may be of guidance to the government in its task.
The Old Age Pensions Act and associated legislation is a dominion-born statute. It was passed, I believe in 1927, in cooperation with the provincial governments and with some minor modifications it has remained on the statute books almost in its original state.
The fact that this statute during those years has been permitted to remain more or less in a static condition is one which might well be criticized. Because of their administrative arrangements with the federal government, and to ensure their provincial autonomy, the provincial governments have exercised certain powers. In turn they have been assisted by the municipalities and by local boards which have been set up in the municipalities. To all intents and purposes the clerks of municipalities have been the media through whom the applications have been developed. Originally the Old Age Pensions Act operated on a fifty-fifty basis. That has been modified to the extent that it is now placed at seventy-five for the dominion and twenty-five for the provinces.
Quite recently the federal government has discovered that it can spend well over $200 million per year to look after the younger citizens of the country, and it has found a way to do that without consulting the provinces to any great extent. The money is paid from the federal treasury to persons who are not expected directly to benefit. If this can be done in one instance, then it is quite probable that ways and means could be found to do it in respect of old age pensions, and in other instances. Ways and means are being found to do these things.
Old Age Pensions
The conference between the federal and provincial authorities is to continue, and flowing from it one would expect further legislation. It is to be hoped that the legislation affecting old age pensions will be changed materially, so that at least the charity feature of the present act will be eliminated.
I do not pretend to have had the vast experience the hon. member for Spadina has had. On the other hand I recall being in his office some years ago at a time when some of us carried municipal responsibilities. I have always remembered his generous attitude and his endeavour to try to meet the problems so as not to humiliate unduly the people who form the most deserving group of citizens in our country. The responsibility now rests upon the federal government. I ask the federal government to tell this house what they are going to pay these persons of either sixty or sixty-five years of age, and what fuller measure of security they are going to give these worth-while residents and citizens of this country. I expect that the new minister, under whose supervision any revision would take place, will tell this house why there has been no revision of this matter up to the present time. I am quite satisfied that he will admit that for many years there have been representations of the strongest kind to the federal government asking for changes in the legislation.
I want to point out to the minister or whoever is going to be responsible for the change that there is one thing that must be looked into. I have tried at times to assist in establishing the age of persons who have resided in this country for many years. Section 18 of the act reads:
Any pension authority shall have the right for the purpose of ascertaining the age of any pensioner to obtain without charge,
(b) subject to such conditions as may be specified in the regulations made under this act, from the dominion bureau of statistics, any information on the subject of the age of such pensioner which may -be contained in the returns of any census taken more than thirty years before the date of the application for such information.
I know that this matter has been brought to the attention of the federal authorities many times, or at least I am so informed. This information is given only to the municipal authorities. I know of many people who came to this country in 1912, 1913 and following years, from the motherland and other countries. Often they find that the record of their birth has been destroyed, or perhaps it was not established in the first place. These people have lived in this country for thirty years or more, but are unable to establish their exact age. Under the present act, the dominion
Old Age Pensions

bureau of statistics is unable to give anything beyond 1911. As a humble representative of one section of this country I know of several instances in which British subjects, by birth or naturalization, who have proven themselves good citizens, were unable to prove their age. If by a modification of the act we can assist them to prove their age and thus get their just rights, it is our duty to do it and we should do it immediately.
I pass on to another phase of the matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the government. To a large extent the federal treasury will have to find the money, and I suppose they will tell us what they propose to do and how much it is going to cost. It seems to me that a broad policy should be laid down. Reference has been made by the hon. member for Spadina and others to the means test. In my opinion this means test is abominable. As the hon. member said, if he had had anything to do with it years ago he would have thrown it out the window. I assume we shall be told what is to be done about doing away with the humiliating experience that these old citizens of the country are subjected to.
Members in every part of the house know of people in the humblest walks of life who by working hard have saved sufficient to buy a little four-roomed cottage. Many such people are faced with the humiliating experience of being deprived of passing that on to a crippled son when they leave this earthly abode. I have had experiences of that kind. If we do not wipe out the means test, we should modify the act" so that those who apply for old age pensions will be able to retain a reasonable part of what they have struggled a lifetime to get, and still be given their just rights by way of a pension. I know the government have heard this story for many years, but nothing has been done. We go along in a state of lethargy and do not seem to realize that these people have not been getting their just rights.


An hon. MEMBER:: They waited for an
election.


Mr. LOCKHART:: As someone back here
very aptly says, they waited until an election came along. Someone has been asleep at the switch, and it is about time he woke up. This has been placed on the doorstep of the government, and I am simply pointing out some of the things I have experienced. I want them to give full cognizance to what I am saying.
I Should like to say a word about the earning capacity of pensioners. A pensioner is allowed to earn. $125 a year. He is also given $3 a month as a so-called cost of living bonus;

this small pittance is added to his pension, while others in Canada were receiving double and treble that amount in recognition of the increased cost of living. Again I say that the very essence of our citizenship, those who have pioneered and built up this country, were obliged to take less than their just rights.
Again, an old age pensioner is allowed to earn over and above his pittance of a pension only $125 a year. No matter what action might finally be taken by this house on old age pensions after the subject has been duly considered by, I hope, every member, I would ask the government to increase the amount which an old age pensioner is permitted to earn, in addition to the small old age pension he receives, because many of these people still have a lot of activity left in them and still have a great love for this country and would like an opportunity to do what work they can. I should like to see the amount they can earn materially increased, and if the government does not propose to do that, I am going to rise in my place in this house and demand it. I know the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) the other night said that it was not much use for any of us to rise and say what we wanted because everything was cut and dried and we got nowhere anyway. But I say, Mr. Speaker, that at least we can make our views known to the government and let them and the country know that we are alive to the situation which exists.
Another point I wish to bring to the attention of the government is the deductions which are made from the old age pension by reason of a military pension being received. A father and mother in receipt of an old age pension may have been depending on a soldier son who went overseas and was incapacitated or perhaps lost his life on the battlefield or died as a result of service. If the hon. member for Spadina were present at the moment he could cite many such cases. I have one in mind. The government knows all about it because I believe the provincial government of Ontario has brought it to their attention. If not, I shall be glad to furnish the details. This old couple on the death of their son were getting about $25 or $30 a month. They were also paid a mere pittance in the form of old age pension. There were doctors' bills to pay and many other unfortunate circumstances. I have the details here on my desk. To state it briefly, the old age pension they received was adjusted because the act provided that that had to be dbne. If the minister wants the facts I will give them to him. I shall not take the time of the house to relate them now. It is time that the government woke up to the fact that

Old Age Pensions
the people of this country want them to do what is right and fair to the best of our citizens who are now well up in years.
I also wish to bring up the question of proving citizenship in order to get the old age pension.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not in order.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: It is very much in order.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Certainly it is because citizenship has to be proved in order to get the old age pension. There are British subjects in this country who have been unable to prove their citizenship. There is no question at all that they have lived in this dominion, some of them for forty or fifty years, and in the case of one that I know of, for sixty years. But certain records 'have been lost and these people are unable to establish where they were born or what their original citizenship was. They are among the pioneers, the very best citizens of our country. They have been good citizens for thirty, forty and fifty years. There should be some provision in the act whereby these people could obtain whatever pension is paid and at whatever age it is paid, instead of being denied the pension as they are now because of their inability to prove that they are British subjects. The act is definite on that point; they must prove their citizenship. If I am wrong the minister will correct me, but I believe I am right. That is one thing which certainly needs rectifying.
There is another thing that needs rectifying, and to illustrate my point I will cite a case which came to my attention about two months ago. A woman of eighty years of age, keen and active, had been receiving the old age pension, formerly $20, now raised to $28 by reason of the increased cost of living, or supplementary aid or whatever it is called. She went to visit a sick daughter in the city of Detroit. The daughter was lying at the point of death. The act says that the pensioner must not stay outside Canada for more than thirty days. The daughter lay at the point of death, not for thirty days, but for four long months, during which the mother sat at her bedside, administered the medicine and perhaps had considerable to do in bringing about her daughter's final recovery. Because this pensioner had stayed outside Canada more than thirty days her old age pension was cut off, and she has to go through the whole business of applying again. Surely some latitude should be allowed to the provincial governments, which are charged with the administration of the act. But the act itself says that the pension must be cut off if the pensioner stays outside Canada for
more than thirty days. There may be many extenuating circumstances which ought to be taken into consideration.
I know of another case, where a father visited his son in Philadelphia, and while there took ill and was in hospital for two and a half months. His pension was cut off.
I ask the minister to consider these cases. Old age pensions will be much discussed at the dominion-provincial conference, and I appeal to the minister now to make sure that these injustices to the best of our citizenship are definitely cured and these inconsistencies rectified. They are injustices done to what I always have felt is the very cream of our citizenship, those who have helped to build up this country and to whom we owe so much. I ask the minister to make sure that when this subject of old age pensions is considered, steps will be taken to ensure that injustices and inconsistencies of the sort I have mentioned are definitely cured.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.
Mr.	STANLEY	KNOWLES	(WinnipegNorth	Centre): Mr.	Speaker, I	join	with
those who are calling for the vote but I know how little chance there is of the question being put.
Mr.	GRAYDON:	Don't talk	out	the
motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't worry. I seconded the motion and I shall not be talking it out.


Mr. GRAYDON:: You are going to if you do not sit down.
Mr.	KNOWLES:	Mr. Speaker, as	the
seconder of the motion it certainly was my intention to speak to it. My interest in old age pensions is well known, and the material on my desk is abundant evidence that I had a good deal to say. However, it has been intimated to me that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Claxton) would like to make a statement before the debate closes to-day. I have offered to yield to him for that purpose, although he may think that what I am going to say in a sentence or two will indicate a rather high price for the privilege I am prepared to accord him. I yield to the minister because I feel that the old people of Canada would like to have some definite statement from the government as to what they may expect in terms of the immediate implementing of the federal government's proposals for better old age pension legislation.
The other night when I was speaking in a previous debate the minister did not altogether like the reference I made to 1948 when
Old Age Pensions

I asked if, perchance, that- was to be the year of the next election. I remind him now that when he answered my question in the midst of my speech he did not specifically state when in his opinion the new scale of 830 a month for all over seventy would come into effect. I hope that in the few minutes which are left this afternoon he will answer that question directly. That is why I am prepared to let him speak in my place.
As I have already said, the old people of Canada know very well where I stand on this question. They want to know where the government stands. For that purpose I am glad to yield to the minister, and I hope that he will not "muff" the opportunit)' I am giving him at this time.


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I deeply
appreciate the courtesy extended by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in giving me an opportunity of taking up some of the points which have been discussed this afternoon. I should also thank some hon. members, I think a considerable number, who did want to speak on this subject but who have .not had an opportunity. I should have liked to discuss the resolution as thoroughly as I could and put before the house a considerable body of facts and figures which bear on this question and which, I think, we ought to have before reaching a conclusion on it. But time does not permit that to be done on this occasion. There will be other opportunities during the session when we can go more fully into this.
First of all, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) on his maiden speech and welcome him to the house. He has shown, over a long period of years, an interest in social questions, and I am sure that the speech he made this afternoon will be but one of many in which he will contribute greatly to our knowledge, interest, and enthusiastic support of social security and health measures in Canada.
I wish it had been possible for me to say the few words I am going to say without any political note; but the attitude of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) and his suggestion that continuously he and the members of his party have been pressing for something to be done in connection with old age pensions which had been, constantly and obstinately resisted by other parties in this house, leads me to recall to the house that when the question of old age pensions was first suggested here in 1926 it was resisted by a list of

speakers which certainly sounded like the hierarchy of the Conservative party. They included Sir Henry Drayton, the late Mr. R. S. White, Hon. C. H. Cahan, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett and Hon. R. J. Manion. I do not think one will find many speeches since then from that quarter in this field.


Mr. IRVINE:: May I correct the minister? I think that if he looks up the debates of 1924 he will find that I then raised the question of old age pensions, and I happened to be on the committee which was appointed by this house in connection with the subject.


Brooke Claxton: I read only yesterday the hon. members contributions to the subject. I was referring not to his corner of the house but to hon. gentlemen opposite.


James Arthur Ross: In this connection, I have referred to this matter for five sessions, and as recently as last April, and the minister has sat here on several occasions when I have discussed this very matter.


Gordon Graydon: He just wants to give us a lecture in ancient history.


Brooke Claxton: There may be some
exceptions over that long period of time, but I think by and large what I have said is true. I would not have mentioned it had it not been for the attitude of the hon. member for Lincoln.
With regard to the special cases he mentioned, I think it is a fact that every one is a matter of provincial administration of laws and regulations which have been agreed to as between the dominion and the provinces. If he has any special cases I wish he would bring them to our attention and we will follow them up. I thought that on two or three points he was completely inaccurate in his interpretation of the law.
It seems to me that a good many of the speakers to-day have been rushing in a crowd to burst through an open door. The discussion has taken place, if I may say so, in a temper which is wholly satisfactory and entirely constructive, but it has to a considerable degree taken place as though the dominion government had never made its proposals to the dominion-provincial conference. Those proposals must be available to hon. members; they have been distributed; and yet it would seem as though those parts which deal with old age pensions have not received very much attention.
I believe hon. members of every party are in agreement that the Old Age Pensions Act as at present in force is not satisfactory. That

Old Age Pensions
is fundamental. In order to do something about it the federal government took the only course possible, namely, to put before the provinces proposals that the present act should be changed. Those proposals will be found at page 37 and following of the dominion government's proposals to the dominion-provincial conference. There will be found a review of the legislation as it exists, some references to legislation in other countries, and then the dominion government's proposals, first, for a national old age pension at age seventy of $30 a month without a means test; and second, for old age assistance to people between sixty-five and sixty-nine years of $30 a month with a means test, to be provincially administered and to be contributed to on an equal basis by the dominion and provincial governments. These two proposals are elaborated there; and the hon. member for Spadina quoted from the proposals the reasons and objects of the federal government in putting them forward.
These proposals have been put before the provinces. They were put before them at the conference which began on August 6, and formed part of a comprehensive body of proposals to deal with post-war reconstruction and the social security of Canada. They were not put forward in isolation; they were the result of years of study and they were comprehensive. Furthermore, they were part of a plan which we are convinced will work, and which is the only plan so far put before the people of Canada of such a nature or of any nature to cover the whole field of employment, reconversion and social security, as well as finance.
When the proposals were put before the provinces they received what I think anyone who was present would regard as a sympathetic reception. Certainly the provinces gave every assurance that the proposals would receive serious consideration, and we in this house can only take it to be the case that they are receiving serious consideration to-day. With that as the situation confronting us at this moment, it seems to me it would be quite inappropriate for this government to make some totally different proposal with regard to anything of a major nature here. The place where we can do it is before the conference and the time to do it is at the conference.
That is not just a technical objection. It is a very serious objection because of this. The plan suggested by several speakers in the debate on the address, and suggested in the speech to-day by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), was for old age pensions to be paid to all citizens on attaining the age of sixty years, at $50 a month without a
means test. The estimate which the Dominion Bureau of Statistics has given me would indicate that in the year 1948, $50 a month to every person of sixty years of age and over would cost the federal government $850 million for that year alone. When I tell the house that the total amount raised by personal income tax for the year 1944-1945 is estimated to be 672 million hon. members will see something of the magnitude of the proposal put forward by the hon. member.
In other words, the cost of this proposal would be more than the total personal income tax paid by the Canadian people during the last year. That has a definite bearing on our relations with the provinces. We have with them an agreement under which we have agreed to retire from tax fields by an amount sufficient to enable them to raise certain sums in income taxation. Were we to impose taxes or keep in force taxes of the nature required by my hon. friend's proposals, we could not carry out our undertaking with the provinces.
This proposal is being put forward, too, at a time when I think the great body of the Canadian people would like to see a reduction in income taxation.


Mr. BURTON:: Not at the expense of the
old folks.


Brooke Claxton: That reduction in taxation can be made, and we believe it can be made at the same time as the social security legislation of Canada is put on a footing second to none in the -whole civilized world. We believe that can be done and will be done if these proposals are put into effect. But we cannot do that if at the same time we put on our people a burden of taxation which crushes all initiative and which prevents all enterprise from carrying on successfully at a profit. Whether enterprise is carried on publicly or privately, it can make or lose money. It does not make much difference whether it is done publicly or privately from that point of view. But there is the other element. Hon. members and the people of Canada are looking to a great amount of trade after the war as one of the important factors by which we can maintain the very high standard of living we have achieved. We shall not have that trade unless we are in a position to meet prices, and that cannot be done if we have taxation on a scale such as would be required here.
What we have done in our proposals is not to take old age pensions just by themselves and say we will spend S850 million and give old age pensions at the age of sixty years to a lot of people who will not need them anyway. What we have done is to look over the whole economy of Canada and study the
Old Age Pensions

situation of the people of Canada in relation to their needs, and we have tried to put together a balanced programme of social security, having regard not only to old age, not only to the provision of assistance for our children, but also to health, unemployment and preventive medicine.
These proposals, which hon. members will find in the green book, have been worked out so as to present a balance, and we believe that * the provision of $200 million for old age pensions, payable without proof of need, to everyone at seventy years of age, at the rate of $30 a month, is well within possibilities. We believe that the provision of health insurance, which may cost $150 million to the federal government, is well within possibilities. And these measures, taken with family allowances, which may cost $200 million net, will present to the Canadian people a body of social legislation which, taken with that already in force in the provinces, or under consideration in the provinces, will put Canada in the forefront of the world to-day in the field of social security legislation.
One word in conclusion. A good deal has been said about the old age provisions in other countries. I say to my hon. friends that if the old age pension put before the provinces in the dominion proposals is carried into effect we shall have within Canada the most generous old age pension system anywhere in the world, and I calculate that by dividing the amount of the cost by the number of possible recipients. I say similarly, if my hon. friends will total up the anticipated costs of the social security legislation put forward in these proposals, and add to them the costs of the social security legislation already in force in the provinces and in the dominion, they will see that Canada will be leading the world in its per capita contribution to the welfare of the Canadian people if the present plans are accepted by the provinces and by this house.
As I say, this represents a comprehensive plan. It would not do at this moment to pick out this and change that, and it would not be keeping faith with the provinces. We have put before them in all seriousness and sincerity these proposals; we are willing to carry them out just as soon as they can be agreed to, and we hope they will be carried out. We believe, too, that the surest way of securing what my hon. friends would want would be that they should assist us in presenting these proposals to the people of Canada and to the provinces, so that they will secure the support which we believe they deserve.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister
answer the question as to the earliest pos-
FMr Claxton.]
sible date on which this plan would come into effect?


Brooke Claxton: I certainly will. The
fact is that there has been a misapprehension, gathered from the table on page 39 of the proposals, where the estimated cost of the federal old age proposals is given, based on the 1948 figures. As I told the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the other night, the reason why the 1948 figures were selected was that that was thought to be the first year when we could safely estimate that there would be a full conversion from war to peace, and most of the figures in the proposals were related in one way or another to 1948. That is the only reason why 1948 was put there. If the provinces agree to the proposals we will introduce old age pensions just as soon as the legislation can be brought in to do it effectively.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But when will that be?


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, October 4, 1945.