Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):

I wish to express my personal disapproval of the report of the committee and to give briefly my reasons for disapproving. I think this committee has been working on a wrong line. It has been endeavouring to arrive at some scheme of old age pensions that would embrace the voluntary co-operation of the provinces. We have been instructed by the Justice department that we cannot constitutionally pass legislation that would be obligatory on the provinces. Still the committee persists in its course. I presume that if all the provinces of Canada voluntarily accepted the committee's proposal we might possibly obtain an old age pension scheme along the line of the committee's report, but I do not think that any member of this House will anticipate that all the provinces of Canada will agree to such a scheme anywhere this side of the next thousand years. I do not think there is the slightest possibility of getting an old age pension scheme along the lines of the proposal of the committee. I do not say of

Old Age Pensions

course that the committee has not been perfectly sincere in its quest and in its recommendations, but if hon. members will go over the replies which have come to us from the premiers of the various provinces it will be found that nearly all consider old age pensions entirely a federal matter and will have nothing to do with it. The provincial governments point out the injustice which would come to the provinces which would not come into the scheme, and consequently, if we are to pay any attention at all to the advice of the provinces, we will abandon the scheme suggested by the committee, and proceed at once with a scheme which would be entirely federal, leaving the responsibility on the federal government. We have been told by the chairman of the committee (Mr. Raymond), that the committee does not consider that Canada can stand the financial pressure involved in raising the moneys required to carry out this old age pension scheme; the committee, however, think it could be done if the provinces came in. It is surely clear that it would take the same amount of money whether the provinces came in or not, and the taxpayers of Canada are not so foolish as to imagine they pay any less if they pay part of it through the imunicipalities, part of it through the provincial government and part of it through the federal government. They know perfectly well that if they pay so much in taxes, they pay the same amount no matter how often you divide it. On the other hand to say that we cannot afford it is a confession which I, as a member of this House, do not wish to concur in. I believe we can afford it; but if it be so that we cannot afford it, let us frankly say so and not continue making a pretence that we are on the way to obtaining old age pension legislation by referring the whole question to a conference.

I think the report of the committee recommends that at a meeting to be held this summer; when the provincial premiers are in conference with the federal government in respect to constitutional! amendments, this matter is to be brought up.. And a report is to be given ait the next session of parliament. I do not think instructions given by this session of parliament will be considered binding by another session of parliament. Further, the conference that will be held this summer will have all they can deal with without attempting to deal with this matter at all. If they deal with it, it will be in a very cursory fashion which will not be satisfactory. Without discussing this matter further I beg to move:

That this report be referred back to the committee with instructions to consider and report on a purely federal scheme.

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):

Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the remarks of the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) when he says that the Justice department reported that it would be impossible for the Dominion to co-operate with the provinces in this matter.

Mr. IRVINE:

I did not say that.

Mr. NEILL:

That is what I gathered

from the hon. gentleman's remarks. Perhaps he will correct his statement.

Mr. IRVINE:

I pointed out that the Justice department advised us that it was outside of the jurisdiction of the federal parliament to proceed with a scheme such as is proposed by the committee. The hon. member should read the report.

Mr. NEILL:

I take exception to that.

That, to my mind, is not the report of the Justice department. What the Justice department reported was that under the British North America Act the duty of functioning an old age pension scheme devolved primarily on the provinces, but it said that it did not

Old Age Pensions

preclude any assistance which this Dominion might extend by way of voluntary grant, but that it would not be possible for it to establish and operate a scheme under its own auspices if it involved any measure of compulsion. That is to say, if it required the provinces to pay so much or if it required the individual to pay so much, then we would be exceeding our jurisdiction. It, however, expressly left the door open for any assistance by the Dominion to a co-operative scheme formulated by the provinces. The hon. member for East Calgary says that he anticipates that this co-operative scheme must essentially be a failure and never come to anything because it will be a long time, if ever, before the whole nine provinces will agree to it. The scheme recommended by the committee last year and again endorsed this year did not contemplate that there should be unanimous action by the provinces; it suggested assistance by the Dominion government to any province, and all provinces, if and when they decided to avail themselves of it. I remember the same remark was made-"You will never get the provinces to come in,"-when this government a number of years ago proposed to vote, I think, $20,000,000 for the encouragement of good roads in the different provinces. It was said that the scheme would be unworkable; that the different provinces would not come in. The matter, however, was left optional; those that wished to come in could come in, and those that decided to stay out could do so. In the final result, I believe they have all come in and taken advantage of the assistance offered by the Dominion government.

I am aware that in the replies received from the different provinces, the tendency was to "pass the buck" to the Dominion government. They all suggested that they did not want to do the work and they did want the Dominion government to do it. But there are two features which will, perhaps, somewhat modify their views now. At that time they were not in possession of the report of the Department of Justice which says that is not our business to assume entirely the burden of any scheme of .that kind and which places the responsibility directly and finally upon the provinces. Perhaps, had they been informed of that decision they would not have taken the position they did, and when they are informed of it they may see fit to change their point of view. That is why the committee recommended that the matter be taken up at the conference which is to be held this fall. The provinces may be given full information of that advice of the Justice department; and when the other features of the matter have 283

been explained to them, they may be led to assume their responsibilities in this regard. My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church) says, that Britain pays its old age pensions out of the federal treasury. Certainly, but the British government has control of all the taxable resources of the British nation. We do not occupy the same position in Canada. We only control part of the revenues of Canada and the provinces control a very large part. It is true, as the hon. member for East Calgary says, that the expense will be the same, whether the money comes, half out of the Dominion and half out of the provinces, or entirely out of the federal resources. But that is only begging the question, because we are here as guardians of the federal resources, and it is not our function to spend the public money with which we are entrusted in order to succour the finances of provinces whose duty it is to assume that responsibility. While the total cost will be the same, it is not our duty to pay out money for the benefit of the provinces when the British North America Act has decreed that they are to do so. If we once give way on that point, then we shall be asked to assume other obligations-education, for instance-of the different provinces. We must assume some responsibility in dealing with the public money of Canada as compared with that of the provinces.

My hon. friend (Mr. Irvine) takes exception to the fact that this conference has been called primarily for another purpose, that is, to deal with Senate reform. He suggests that there should be a separate conference. But it is very unreasonable, I think, to ask that representatives of the provinces should be called from such vast distances as we have in Canada, specially for the purpose of considering this one subject, when the provinces are meeting together in any case for another purpose. Would it make any difference if they were called a week later, or a day after the conference on the other subject? Surely the same representatives could stay a day or two longer and hold a conference on this question. The suggestion that they cannot discuss it this fall is, I think, an untenable one.

There is no member of this House to whom I would yield in the desire to see an old age pensions scheme gone ahead with. I come from a district comprising workers almost entirely, and I know that such a scheme would be favoured there. At the same time, however, I must recognize my responsibility as a member of parliament to the whole of Canada, and I am not prepared to stand here and, for the sake of a little cheap applause in my constituency, ask the Dominion of Canada to saddle itself with a liability running into

Old Age Pensions

twenty-three or twenty-four million dollars a year. It is an object devoutly to be wished in the future; but at the present time and under our present taxation and financial conditions we are not entitled to ask the government to go into such a large annual expenditure especially in view of the ruling of the Justice department that it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. HANCE J. LOGAN (Cumberland): As a member of the committee which has been considering the bill I have endeavoured to give it my best attention. I am a firm believer in old age pensions; I believe it is one of the great questions before the people of the country to-day. I do not admit that we cannot afford to put such a scheme into effect even if we had to do it federally alone. Australia, which is not as rich a country as this, is able to carry old age pensions, and the sqrne is true of other parts of the Empire and of the civilized world generally. I do not agree therefore that, even as a federal government alone, we could not carry on an old age pension scheme. But I want to see results. To-day the poor are being taken care of by the provincial and municipal authorities and we have suggested a scheme whereby $20 a month will be paid to old people. The committee has recommended that this government provide one-half of the amount, or $10, the provinces to contribute the other half. The proposal has been referred to the provinces and I am bound to say that in my opinion they have replied without having given the matter serious consideration, because I contend that it is in their interests, from the financial point of view alone, altogether apart from sentimental reasons, to accept the proposal. Tinder our scheme they would contribute $10 towards the maintenance of every poor person in the province, whereas under present conditions it is costing them at least $20 a month. The provinces therefore would stand to gain rather than lose if this scheme which we propose were put into effect. I am inclined to think that when the reference was made to the provinces they felt that this was a matter altogether within the scope of the federal authority, and they replied to this effect without giving the proposal due consideration. For that reason I think it is desirable that a conference should be called. And in this connection I would point out that the committee in its recommendation does not ask that the matter be referred to the conference which it is proposed to hold on any other subjects; the suggestion is that a special conference be

called to consider this particular matter. I believe that if the premiers of the different provinces came together we could convince them that altogether apart from the sentimental reason, the provinces would stand to gain financially if they adopted this scheme; and I have no doulbt that on that ground we could put it through. My hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) thinks that we should go ahead at the present time without reference to the provinces at all. That is more easily said than done. It sounds very well; but it is not practical at the present time. The day will come when such a course will be advisable if the provinces refuse to contribute. But I submit that the provinces have the necessary machinery for carrying on this work, and in our report we recommend that they should distribute the pensions; and as they are nearer to the people to be benefited than the federal government could possibly be, I believe it would be the proper thing to call a special conference between this government and the authorities of the provinces to consider this very important matter and if possible to come to a satisfactory conclusion. I would vote against the amendment of the hon. member for East Calgary for another reason; at this stage of the session, within a very few days of prorogation, it is no time for the committee seriously to take up anew any consideration of this problem. I think it is better to obtain results in a practical way than to vote for motions that are simply illusory, for this is merely throwing dust in the eyes of the people of Canada. What we want is action; we want to put money into the pockets of the needy old men and women of the country. I think a conference with the provinces would surely work out some satisfactory solution of the question and I trust that the result will be the institution of a joint old age pensions scheme.

I am afraid we do not pay sufficient attention to the question of old age pensions. In my humble opinion the prospect that men must face in the twilight of life, without sufficient means to carry on for the rest of their days, is responsible for more pain and anguish than possibly we imagine, and I do think that one of the greatest duties we owe the country, as a federal parliament is to provide for these old people some means of living decently after they have properly contributed their share to the state.

Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary): I want to indicate briefly my reasons for voting for the amendment and against the proposal of

Old Age Pensions

the committee. The committee has had this matter under consideration a great many months, not only during this session but in the preceding session as well; and last session, after oommuniiaations had been received from the provincial governments, the conclusion was reached that nothing like unanimity could be secured from the provincial authorities in regard to this scheme. This year apparently, for what reason I do not know, the committee seems to have followed the same path, having tried to secure the consent of the provinces. And again it has failed. I think we all agree as to the necessity for an old age pensions scheme in Canada. There is no one who would not approve of a proposal of that character, carried out in accordance with constitutional necessity. Speaking for myself, while I favour this scheme, I am not going to be a party to loving the proposal to death by referring it to any conference to be called some time in the future. What hope is there of securing anything like unanimity by means of a conference? The committee so far has not secured that unanimity; is there any hope that the conference will secure it?

Mr. GOOD:

Is unanimity necessary?

Mr. SHAW:

I do not think it is; I am coming to that point. Now, just to illustrate what I mean, I want to refer to the summarized answers of the various provinces in Canada to the proposal made by the committee:

New Brunswick. This government does not disapprove the principle of old age pensions. It would be impossible, however, to commit the province to any action in this matter at the present moment, as it is now considering the establishment otf " widows' " pensions.

What hope is there of semiring any consent from New Brunswick?

Quebec. Considering the obligations actually imposed upon the province, there could be no question of adopting a law which would take care of old age pensions at the present time.

That is the attitude of the province of Quebec. Is there any reason for thinking that if a conference were called in the next few months they are going to change their attitude at the request of the chairman of the committee and of some other members of the committee who may then be present?

Nova Scotia. Without a further and better understanding of the subject matter, and without an opportunity to fully discuss the matter with the committee, no action would be taken upon the matter at present.

Prince Edward Island. This province, having no municipal government, furnishes directly all assistance to indigent aged persons. The premier states that the proposal will be considered.

Manitoba. Under date of February 25, 1925, the attorney general wrote that he would take up the

283i

matter with the Premier and the Minister of Public Welfare at the earliest opportunity.

Saskatchewan. This government is of opinion that the scheme can best be adopted by the federal government alone. It points out the difficulty of providing any scheme that would be suitable to all the nine provinces. It also points out that, " if any number of the provinces w'ere to remain out, it would be almost impossible to adopt any scheme that would not subject those provinces within the arrangement to considerable expense that should rightfully be borne by those outside the scheme."

Alberta. This government approves of the general principle of old age pensions, but is not prepared to accept the recommendations of the committee. It points out: (1) that the federal government should assume a larger share of the financing of the scheme as it is more a federal obligation, it states, than a provincial one; (2) it is not satisfied that a noncontributing scheme is the best one; and (3) that there is no guarantee that the federal government would continue for a definite time to carry out the mutual arrangements with respect to its financing.

British Columbia. This government writes that the matter of old age pensions has been carefully considered by the government and also by the provincial legislature, and the consensus of opinion was that the matter is one entirely in the sphere of the federal parliament, and that it did not concur in the suggestion made by the committee that a portion of the cost of such pensions should be borne by the province.

Ontario. Under date of November 24, 1924, the Premier wrote: "I shall be glad to consider this matter."

That is the situation at the present time. Some of the provinces feel that the obligation is on the federal government alone, some are prepared to consider the matter, and some are not. I see no hope of securing unanimity by referring the matter to any conference convened in the future.

Now, the Justice department indicate very clearly the legal position in this matter, according to the report of the committee. The department advises:

The subject of old age pension does not fall specifically within any of the enumerated subjects given to the Dominion under section ninety-one of the British North America Act, but does fall within the subject of "property and civil rights in the province" committed to the provinces under section ninety-two.

The Deputy Minister of Justice adds:

I am of opinion therefore that the subject matter of pensions has been entrusted to the provincial legislatures rather than to parliament. I do not mean to suggest that parliament has not the power to legislate upon the subject so as to assist the provinces or to establish 'an independent, voluntary scheme, provided that in either case the legislation does not trench upon the subject matter of property and civil rights in the province, as for example by obligating any province or person to contribute to the scheme.

If I understand the situation aright, Mr. Speaker, this parliament has no power under the British North America Act to pass any legislation that would impose an obligation upon the provincial governments with respect to old age pensions.

Old Age Pensions

Mr. LOGAN:

Would the hon. member mind reading the balance of the deputy minister's opinion?

Mr. SHAW:

I shall be glad to.

The enactment of such legislation would, however, involve the assumption by the Dominion of obligations involving heavy expenditures with regard to a matter which does not fall specifically within the Dominion field of legislation.

This is, of course, the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice, but I have no doubt the scheme would involve a considerable obligation. Now, what can we do, if we want to dio anything? The only course we can take is to pass legislation appropriating certain sums of money and saying in effect to the provincial governments, one and all: If you pass an old age pensions scheme along certain lines, we are prepared to contribute of our resources up to a specified extent. That is the situation as I understand it: it must be an entirely voluntary scheme in order to keep within the provisions of the British North America Act. But this is not the only matter in the same position. Parliament has not hesitated to provide large sums of money by way of a housing scheme and for highway purposes, and the legislation under which the money was appropriated stands in exactly the same category as the legislation proposed in this ease. To my mind it is far more important, and far more imperative, that we should pass legislation for old age pensions that that we should place upon the statute books federal legislation in aid of highways and housing.

Mr. VTEN:

Does not the hon. member recall that we have done away with the subsidies in respect of highways and housing?

Mr. SHAW:

The hon. gentleman may be right in regard to the housing legislation, but this session we have expressly extended the period within which the provinces can secure the benefit of the appropriation for highway purposes.

Mr. VIEN:

But only for the unexpended portion of the vote.

Mr. 'SHAW: Well, if it was wrong, why did not my bon. friend object to any vote at all for the purpose?

Mr. VIEN:

I did object.

Mr. SHAW:

The matter of old age pensions is in exactly the same category from a constitutional point of view. In my opinion, it is far more vital, it is far more imperative, that parliament should declare itself on this important matter now. As I said before, I am not going to be a party to postponing forever much-needed legislation of

this character. I agree with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) that action should be taken, and I do not think anything will be gained by delaying it further. If necessary, I am prepared to stay 'here for another month, and I am sure a large number of members are prepared to do the same, in order to see that such legislation as meets with the approval of parliament is passed to put into effect an old age pension scheme.

Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):

Mr. Speaker, may I point out that there will be very great difficulties in securing a fair and reasonable working out of any scheme such as is proposed by the committee in their report. We will assume, for instance, that under this scheme the province of Ontario accepted the federal government's proposal and put it into operation, but that the province of Quebec refused to do so. Immediately there would be a hardship on the taxpayers of Quebec because they would thus be compelled to contribute their share towards the operation of the scheme in Ontario without securing any of its benefits themselves. But let me point out how it would operate in regard to individuals. An old couple might have lived perhaps all their lives in the province of Quebec and then in their declining years, moved to the province of Ontario. Probably under the regulations governing old age pensions they would be required to prove ten years' residence in Ontario before they would be eligible for pensions. In that case Ontario would be supporting them although they had lived fifty or sixty years in the neighbouring province. On the other hand, a couple might have lived in Ontario all their lives and then moved to one of the other provinces for, say, one year, afterwards returning to their original home, and this break might render them ineligible for pension benefits in Ontario. It seems to me therefore that it is impossible to secure a fair and equitable working out of such a scheme of co-operation between the federal government and the provinces.

Mr. W. G. RAYMOND (Brantford):

Mr. Speaker, in view of the amendment, may I say a word in defence of the report? I thought the correspondence between the premiers of the provinces and the committee which appears in our report would have been read by the members of t'he House, and therefore was a matter of general knowledge, but I was very glad; to hear the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) read that correspondence, and I think in it we find the reason for the report of the committee. That is to say, the provincial premiers pointed out that they want to look into this matter further,

Old Age Pensions

and tihe report of the committee, by suggesting a meeting with the premiers, gives them an opportunity for discussing the scheme fully.

Now, let me point out the position before the House in adopting either the report of the amendment. The report will carry on further the work that was taken up by the committee. The amendment will stop it by referring the matter back to the committee, whose functions end with this parliament, and therefore such action will absolutely squelch the scheme. We wish to see the work earned on and discussed in conference with the premiers of the provinces. If it is discussed, I am sure that an amicable arrangement can be come to. In the correspondence the premier of British Columbia says in his last tetter that he has seen a different light on the question to what he had when the resolution was moved in the legislature of his province, which resolution was forwarded to the committee by the lieutenant governor. The amendment to the report proposes the alternative of an annual expenditure of $23,000,000, not merely a vote of this sum, and the majority of the members of the committee did not feel prepared to take the responsibility of recommending such a large annual outlay.

Further, I may state that in the discussions of the committee there were those who wished that instead of $20 a month the amount should be $40. That would make the sum involved $46,000,000 instead of $22,000,000, and the age would be reduced according to the ideas of these members from 70 to 65 which would have added forty or fifty per cent further to the necessary annual expense to carry out such a scheme as seems to be their objective. It appears to me that it i3 what may be described as the " freedom of irresponsibility " that gives members the liberty to recommend such a large annual expenditure to this House, and I feel confident that such an act never would pass. But the scheme proposed by the committee is one which approaches nearer the end and object of the committee and which will carry out their purpose. I do not wish to go over the evidence that was presented to the committee, it is all in the report for the benefit of those that are interested. But I say, and I say it with the greatest respect that the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) who have spoken on the subject, have shown by the remarks they have made that they have not read or considered the committee's report. I would therefore, Mr. Speaker, urge the House to adopt the report of the committee with a view to the furthering of this very desirable scheme of old age pensions.