Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern):

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the house very long, but I want to bring to the attention of hon. members the situation in which we find ourselves as representing this dominion. Every hon. member who has spoken to-day has endorsed the principle of this resolution. They agree that those who have been unfortunate enough to lose their sight are deserving of some assistance from their more fortunate fellow Canadians. It is admitted that something should be done at once, but nearly every hon. member who has spoken has brought up the question of where the money is to come from. As I listened to the

speeches of hon. members I was reminded of David Copperfield. In that book mention is made of a person who was trying to write a history but who could not get around King Charles' head. It kept coming up and coming up. This problem of where to find the money keeps coming up in connection with every proposal made in the house. It is agreed that it is desirable to do something, but the contention is that we have not the money. We all know that if we were faced with war the necessary credit would be forthcoming. Great Britain considers that she is faced with the danger of war and she is able to make an immediate appropriation of $1,500,000,000. We know that if Canada were in the same danger we would have no difficulty in finding the necessary credit to carry on any defence plans deemed necessary.

The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ryan) who has just spoken has indicated that this resolution has been used by some hon. members as an excuse to make an attack upon the bankers.

I think the hon. gentleman has misconstrued the attitude of that increasing number of men who count themselves as monetary reformers. They do not attack the bankers as individuals; they attack the system which has grown up during the last fifty years. They do not suggest that the bankers are any less devoted than is anyone else to the best interests of society, but they do say that the financial system is not working in the best interests of the people. I would point out that some of the greatest economists in the world to-day have come to the definite conclusion that in the twentieth century we are trying to do business under a financial system that, while it may have done fair service in the nineteenth century, is just as much out of date to-day as is the ox-cart when compared with the motor car. I hear member after member say that the financial system is too complicated for parliament to deal with, but I suggested that if they really want something done along the lines which have been just suggested, they should devote their study to the financial system and the banking policy.

It is a well recognized fact that the country is continually going deeper into debt. If we could not afford to do a certain thing last year, there is not much hope of our being able to afford to do it this year and there is less hope of our being able to afford it in the future. We are willing to speak soft words on behalf of and offer sympathy to the blind, but we have not the money to do anything for them. This reminds me of a certain saying in the bible: They asked for bread and he gave them a stone. It reminds me of the

Pensions jor the Blind

parable of the loaves and fishes at the time when the multitude were to be fed. The question was asked where the money was to come from, but the multitude were fed with bread and fish without money coming into the question. We as a deliberative assembly must devote ourselves to finding ways and means of doing what is physically possible, Tegardless of whether the financial system as at present constituted stands in the way. If we do not do this we are not doing our duty to the people of Canada.

What these blind people need is food, clothing and some of the other good things of life. If the financial system does not permit us to do those things which we as a Christian people realize we should do, which we know we have the ability to do, then it should be changed. If we refuse to study this problem can we say that we are as serious as we should be in our desire to do something for these people? That is the question I put to the house. This is the test that faces this House of Commons. Do we really mean these things? Do we want to have them done? If so, let us begin to study some of the ways suggested by the greatest economists not only of the English-speaking nations but of the world. Let us begin to give serious and sympathetic consideration to those suggested ways and means whereby in this twentieth century we may go forward and place at the disposal of these blind people the things that it is physically possible to put at their disposal. The things that are physically possible should be financially possible, and if under our present system they are not financially possible, although physically possible, then we are subordinating the best interests of the people to adherence to a system; we are refusing, by our adherence to an outworn system which no longer serves humanity to the best possible advantage, to benefit by the abundance which providence has given us. I am not now advocating any particular change in the system, but I know that every hon. member present would like to do something for the blind as well as for others who are unable to look after themselves. As the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) has said, fifty-four per cent of what we raise in taxation is going towards paying interest on our debt. That is where the money is going and it is in that quarter that we should direct the searching gaze of parliament to find out whether we cannot there save money and thereby serve the best interests of the Canadian people.

Mr. W. H. MILLS (Elgin):

I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without saying a word in favour of the resolution, but before I speak

to it, as this is the first occasion on which I have addressed the house during this session,

I should like to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Speaker, upon your elevation to the respective offices which you hold, and I would also congratulate you, sir, upon the order which you maintain.

Just a word in reference to the resolution.

I have seen a good deal of the work done by the unfortunate blind and it is truly wonderful to view their accomplishments. But in these times when there is so much competition in all lines it is very hard for these people to find anything to do to earn their living. People who bocome blind at an advanced age are particularly unfortunate in this respect. During my campaign I met a man who had become blind at the age of sixty-four. He was married but had no children. He had nothing saved up and it was necessary for his wife to stay at home to look after him. Apart from the little relief provided by the municipality, they are entirely dependent upon the kindness of neighbours. The question is: Where is the money to come from? But it seems to me that we have money for many other purposes; many other grants are made, and I do suggest that people who are blessed with their sight owe something to their less fortunate brethren.

Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): It seems to be my lot these days to meet deputations and to hear representations both in the house and outside it asking for one of two things, either more expenditure of funds from the public treasury or a reduction in the taxes which contribute to the public treasury. I suppose there is not a member in the house but is favourable to the principle of the resolution now under discussion, and I dare say that anyone who advanced the slightest argument against it from the standpoint of national desirability would be subject immediately to the accusation that he was placing property rights ahead of human rights. The debate however has been on a very high plane with the exception of the contribution of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Poole). I would suggest to him, with all respect, that if he has such a low opinion of this house of which he is a member there is one chamber at all events which is controlled by the members of his own party, and in connection with which there is no doubt whatever as to constitutional authority to deal with this matter; and I suggest that, lacking faith in this chamber and in this government, he might well address himself to that chamber which unquestionably has authority to deal with matters such as this.

Pensions for the Blind

And that brings me to this: The discussion which has taken place to-day would have been virtually impossible in this chamber twenty years ago for the reason that until quite recent times it was assumed, and properly so, that responsibility with respect to measures such as that contemplated by the resolution was provincial in character. All down through the years from confederation on the provinces of Canada had assumed responsibility for all such matters, for dealing with property and civil rights, for dealing with all matters of public charity; and indeed we recognize still that the dominion is merely a contributing factor towards what is really a provincial responsibility in connection with the old age pensions legislation presently on the statute books. There has been in the last twenty years a change to such a point, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) indicated, that the dominion is now contributing seventy-five per cent of the cost of old age pensions to the provinces, a recognition of a fact which is inherent in our constitution, that such responsibilities are first of all provincial.

The provinces have all down through the years recognized their responsibility with respect to the very matter now before the house, because they have set up institutions for the care of the blind and their education as well as for the care and education of various other classes of disabled people. I am not seeking on behalf of the government to put aside this question on constitutional grounds, because rightly or wrongly parliament has embarked upon the principle of assisting the provinces with respect to matters which are clearly within provincial jurisdiction. But when we hear remarks such as those which emanated from the hon. member for Red Deer I think it is well to point out these considerations.

The hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly), who introduced the resolution, made, I think, an admirable presentation, and with regard to the point I have just mentioned I might call his attention to a statement he made. He said that in the United States many states grant old age pensions. The United States is a federal country, similar to Canada. In the United States the federal authority has not yet assumed any responsibility with respect to pensions for the blind.

Mr. HEAPS:

May I ask the hon. minister whether it is not true that the United States, in the new security acts recently enacted, are assuming the responsibility?

Mr. DUNNING:

What acts?

Mr. HEAPS:

Social security acts of the

United States, passed this year.

Mr. DUNNING:

Well, I am not familiar with any recent enactment by which the federal authority in that country assumes any responsibility. In any event I am quite sure that such an assumption of responsibility would be in the same manner as is here proposed.

Mr. HEAPS:

Yes.

Mr. DUNNING:

That is, by way of contribution to what is recognized as a state responsibility.

Dollar for dollar.

Mr. DUNNING:

Dollar for dollar, yes.

I just wish to make that point because of the fact, if I may be permitted to say so, that parliament has now sufficient to do in finding the necessary funds for those activities with which by the constitution it is charged. We want to be generous with respect to humanitarian objects of all kinds; we want to be generous by way of contributions to the provinces, I know; but is it not our first duty to look after those matters with which the constitution of this country charges this parliament?

With respect to the matter of age, I am not at all convinced that good arguments or particularly sound reasons have been advanced for setting it at forty. In England, 1 believe, the age is fifty; in Australia, some one said-the member for Wood Mountain, I think-that the age is sixteen; and if I look at the matter through the eyes of the finance minister I must of course regard age forty as merely the entering wedge. We all know perfectly well that in estimating future financial requirements one cannot possibly take age forty as the basis, because obviously there would be demands from time to time that the age provision be modified on account of what could easily be advanced in cases of people of thirty-five, thirty, or twenty-five years who were at least equally needy with those whose age exceeded forty.

I have on record from some of the blind organizations some objections to provision for the blind being made a part of the old age pension legislation, with, instead, the request that separate provision be made for the blind-I presume as a federal responsibility. I doubt very much if we can approach the matter from that point of view because of what I have been saying with respect to the responsibility of the provinces in connection with the question.

That brings me of course to a consideration mentioned by many speakers, that so far two provinces have not come within the ambit of the old age pensions legislation, and

Pensions for the Blind

consequently, if the blind are added to that legislation, their receipt of pensions would be dependent upon the entry by the dominion into agreements with all the provinces with respect to the payment thereof. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) made some suggestions as to the manner in which further revenues could be raised; he made suggestions of an interesting character. The liquor monopoly in Sweden was held up, I think, as a model for the extraction of money for governmental purposes from a monopoly, and I think the figure of $50,000,000 was mentioned. Well, I just turned over in my mind the amount of money which the governments of Canada, dominion and provincial, are now extracting from the liquor traffic, and from the standpoint of extraction I do not think we have anything to learn from Sweden. As to the method of extraction there might, of course, be some point to my hon. friend's remarks, but I am quite sure that with reference to the amount of money we can show the Swedes a few things at the present time.

Every question of this sort of course renders possible, although I think it is of doubtful order, a discussion of credit. But may I point out that this is not a question of credit at all. This is a question of extracting from the people of Canada each year money to spend on some of the people of Canada. It is not a question of borrowing the money; it is a question of taking it from all of us to give to some of us. No question of credit is involved at all. From year to year we must go on raising from all of us that which we spend either on all of us or on some of us. That is not a question of borrowing. No question of creating money alters the fact that we tax ourselves as a people for the discharge of our public services. I shall not pursue that question further. There will be other opportunities when I shall be much more in order than I am on this resolution to discuss matters of banking and credit.

On behalf of the government I can say that we shall, as this resolution requests us to do, consider it very carefully. We are favourable to it. The practicability of immediate action, of legislation at this session, is very doubtful, however; in fact I should not like to hold out hope that there will be legislation this session implementing this resolution. The government has given it consideration and that is the conclusion of the government at the present time. Naturally I should prefer to say immediately-it would be nice just for once to be able to say-yes, instead of having to say no to almost every

request either for greater expenditure or for lower taxation. But I can only repeat what I said on a former occasion. The government believes that at the present time we require to keep a very tight hand with respect to new commitments, and therefore I cannot hold out hope to the house that we shall propose legislation at this session regarding this matter. While acknowledging the desirability of assisting in the discharge of provincial responsibilities with respect to it, we do not feel justified, in view of the state of the country's finances, in promising to do so at this session.

Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):

Mr. Speaker, I was taking it for granted that every member of this chamber is in favour of the resolution. I also took it for granted that it would pass, and that the government would see that provision was made to take care of our blind. I had no intention of rising until I heard the remarks of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). I received a telegram this morning from the Institute for the Blind at Winnipeg asking me to support the resolution. I want to say that I am supporting the resolution and believe that the money should be found to take care of our blind people.

They can find it for brass hats.

Mr. LEADER:

I did not intend to go into the monetary question at all or to say anything about the huge taxes that the people of this country pay in regard to interest rates, but I want to say something along the lines of economy in administration. Every party in the election last fall had that as a plank of their platform; they were pledged to economy in administration. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that the cost of administering the high commissioner's office in London has doubled in the last four years; that it now costs the taxpayers of this country over $500,000 a year to maintain that institution, including the $250,000 that is spent for advertising purposes. I want to point out that two or three years ago the taxpayers had to pay for a $200,000 building that was erected in Tokyo, Japan. There is no doubt that we can save hundreds of thousands of dollars, yes, millions of dollars in the administration of this country if we only apply ourselves to doing so. If one goes through the auditor general's report, as I have, one will find that in the last five years we have paid out nearly $18,000,000 in travelling expenses. I mention these things just in order to show how we could save a paltry $300,000 to take care of

Retiring Allowances

our sightless people. I have nothing more to say, Mr. Speaker, except that I am supporting the resolution and I am very sorry indeed that the government cannot find the money with which to meet this request.

Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North) moved:

That, in the opinion of this house, the government be requested to take under immediate consideration the question of granting adequate retiring allowances to Canadian citizens of the age of 60 years and over.

He said: I have no desire, Mr. Speaker, to continue the debate on this subject which was carried on in this house for almost two days only a few weeks ago. I know already the attitude of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in this connection; he asked his supporters to turn down a similar resolution. So it is my intention at this time to allow the matter to drop, but I wish to notify the house and the government that at another session of parliament we shall have on the order paper a similar resolution which we hope will receive more sympathetic consideration on the part of the government than was the case this year. Judging from the vast amount of correspondence I have received during the past two or three weeks there would seem to be a very strong, in fact, an almost overwhelming body of sentiment throughout the country in favour of pensions at sixty. Now that we have introduced a resolution of this kind we will continue to bring in similar resolutions until such time as parliament lowers the existing age limit and grants higher pensions than are being given to-day.

With these few words, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the permission of the house to allow this Tesolution to stand or be dropped, with the hope of resurrecting it on another occasion. Motion dropped.

Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation) moved:

That, in the opinion of this house, Canada *should study the question of immediately adopting a seasonal tariff in the interest of market gardening, particularly during the months of April, May and June of each year.

He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a deep sense of gratification that, after five years of

absence, I find myself again in this house. However, I notice that a great change has taken place. The Conservative opposition lacks the exuberance and vigor of former days. For the first time we behold a powerful government elected by a majority without precedent in Canadian parliamentary history. The people of Canada are entitled to expect great things from this government; above all, the financial and economic recovery of the country, the revival of employment, and the improvement of the agricultural situation.

I wished to make these few observations before broaching the subject matter of the motion, which is closely linked with the agricultural progress of this country.

Mr. Speaker, the question which I propose to examine is of national import. From the answers made by the minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) to inquiries which I submitted to him recently, it is obvious that every province in the dominion is deeply interested in market gardening. According to information supplied by the Minister of Finance, the Ontario counties of York, Simcoe, Essex, Middlesex, Hastings, Grey, Waterloo, and Huron are specializing to a greater extent in this market gardening branch of agriculture. In the province of Quebec, the counties of Beauce, Bonaventure, Temiscouata, Champlain, Lake St. John, are included in the list, and I owe it to the truth to add the constituency of Laval-Two Mountains, which it is my privilege to represent in parliament.

The counties of Jacques Cartier, Mercier and the former constituency of Laprairie-Napierville are by no means unconcerned with market gardening; nor is Terrebonne, and many other Quebec counties will, in a few weeks, be real gardens.

I shall quote the latest statistics indicating the land area devoted to market gardening in the province of Quebec and the value of crops produced thereon in the years 1931 and 1935. Statistics, as the poet says, are the thorns of speech, and they compel me tokeep referring to my notes. In 1935, the area thus cultivated amounted to 44.010 acres, representing an increase of more than 2,000 acres in a single year. In fact, in 1931, the area covered was 42,000 acres. That

short period thus showed an increase of five per cent. What was the value of the vegetables produced for marketing purposes in the province of Quebec in 1935? $6,297,000.

And in 1934? $5,601,000. We have there

an increase of 12 per cent. These figuresclearly show the economic importance of

garden marketing to Canada. However, it must be borne in mind that the figures which

Market Gardening

I have just quoted refer only to purely commercial market gardening. If we further take into account the substantial contribution made by home gardens, we find in that interesting analysis unsuspected sources of wealth.

Let me now draw the attention of the house to a comparative statement of the different products of market gardening for the years 1935 and 1934, which I desire to have recorded in Hansard.

Marketing Gardening-1935-1934

Total crop Total value

Acres Acres $ $1935 1934 Unit n ^ 1935 1934 1935 1934Beets . 2,200 2,100 B 814,000 693,000 334,000 298,000Carrots .. 1,200 1,200 B 444,000 475,000 155,000 185,000Celery .. 530 480 D 869,000 864,000 443,000 372,000Cabbage 2,600 B 728,000 884,000 226,000 301,000Cauliflowers . . 650 650 B 98.000 130,000 82,000 104,000Cucumbers . . 1,900 1,900 B 266,000 266,000 146,000 154,000Beans .. 2,700 2,600 B 378,000 302,000 374,000 332,000Lettuce .. 1,100 1,100 D 1,496,000 1,485,000 434,000 297,000Corn.. .. 11,000 10,500 B 1,166,000 1,050,000 758,000 546,000Onions . 2,300 2,100 B 610,000 500,000 555,000 400,000Green peas .. 5,200 5,000 B 364,000 290,000 400,000 235,000Tomatoes .. 6,200 6,000 B 1,860,000 1,962,000 1,135,000 1,717,000Strawberries . 3,500 3,100 Q 6,160,000 5,890,000 524,000 530,000Raspberries . 1,590 1,500 Q 2,544,000 2,250,000 331,000 304,000Other vegetables.. .. 1,340 1,260 400,000 366,000.. 44,010 42,000 -Quarts. 6,297,000 5,601,000(1) B-Bushels. D-Dozens. Q-

At the outset of my remarks, I referred hon. members to the answers made by the honourable Minister of Finance. Besides the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, several counties represented in this house by my honourable colleagues, are interested in market gardening. I may mention, among others, the counties of Queens in Prince Edward Island, Westmorland in New Brunswick and Lunenburg in Nova Scotia. As to the prairie provinces I might mention constituencies numbered 2 and 5 in Manitoba, 9 and 15 in Saskatchewan, 10 in Alberta, and 4, 5 and 6 in British Columbia. This enumeration brings home to me the fact that the vastness of our land gives rise to disadvantages, divergences of opinion, opposition of interests. Is that a reason for impairing the effect of a large investment? Indeed, can anyone say what market gardening in this country has entailed in the way of past sacrifices and hard labour? When we know that an undertaking is profitable, we stay by it; when we do not, we quit it. Too many of our people sometimes scorn our most valuable resources.

In these last few years we have witnessed the demoralizing spectacle of hundreds of thousands of our people subsisting on the dole. Why this degeneracy? Why this ruinous policy? Why this tragic anomaly in a rich country like Canada? Is it not largely due to economic nationalism? The present government has already taken steps to sup-12739-57

press this growing evil. It has demolished the barriers, and even now, as in the days of Laurier and King, the political horizon of the country begins to dawn with brighter hues.

However, in the discharge of this important duty of economic reconstruction, I am fully confident that the authorities will protect the market gardeners against any competition that may prove ruinous to them. Therefore, in the interest of Canadian market gardeners, I urge the establishment of a seasonal tariff during the months of April, May and June of each year. In urging this seasonal tariff, which is so important to agricultural progress, I cannot refrain from upholding once more the rights of the farming community, rights which have been ignored too long. At a time when the hardships and sufferings of a considerable section of the population induce the rulers of the nation to turn their eyes towards the land, it is essential to render all possible assistance to the farmers. The arduous task which they perform from daylight till dark should be generously encouraged by those who preside over the destinies of Canada. Agriculture must survive in this country. Our leaders cannot shirk the duty that devolves upon them to make farming more efficient, more profitable and more prosperous.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

Market Gardening

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.