Mr. DUNNING:

He did not know it until then?

Mrs. BLACK:

He did not know it until then. He thought he was around seventy years of age. When he discovered his real age, his friends were afraid that he would realize how old he was and become so exhausted that he would shortly pass away.

Of course I have always felt quite keenly about the administration of old age pensions in the Yukon. It is not a pension there; it is a dole. The Northwest Territories are administered directly by the federal government and the $20 per month is given as a dole, not as a pension. This is very irritating to self-respecting men or women. When they have paid taxes for perhaps forty or fifty years, they do not like having money handed out to them by the government, and have it called a dole instead of a pension. When

Yukoners who have lived in the country for forty or fifty years feel that they want to retire, if they are able to work they do not get a pension. If they are unable to work they are given this so-called pension in the shape of a dole. If they say, "My family lives in Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia or one of the other provinces and I would like to go there where I could live near them and my former friends on $20 a month," do they get that amount of money? No. If they go to any one of the provinces and live there a year or two they will receive a dollar or two a month, and until they have lived in the province for twenty years they cannot get the pension. That is neither fair nor just. They could live much more comfortably on the outside, and there are former Yukoners in every province of this country who are suffering under that injustice and who have asked time after time that it be removed. They have been a credit to the Yukon territory and to Canada as a whole; so why in the name of justice should they not be allowed a pension when they have moved to some other part of Canada? I asked the government to consider the administration of old age pensions in the Yukon on exactly the same basis as they consider the administration of old age pensions in the Northwest Territories.

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

I agree with the remarks of the hon. lady member who has just sat down, as regards men living in the Yukon. I have come across instances of gross injustice due to the conditions to which she refers.

I propose to support this resolution, not only because I was pledged to it in the campaign, but because I have always been of that opinion. I see that I made a speech in this chamber in January, 1935, setting forward the proposal made this afternoon in almost the same terms.

The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has dealt fully and very fairly with the question of the increased cost. I accept his condition that it would be necessary, if we lowered the age, to put on a contributory basis that portion of it which applies to an age lower than seventy. I think that is the way it is managed in Britain; after seventy it is non-contributory, but between sixty-five and seventy it has to be contributory.

The minister held out-rather prominently, I thought-the bugbear that we could not get the provinces to agree to any further expenditure. That same argument was used here ten years ago, that the provinces would not come in; but we left the door open; we said, "You do not need to come in unless

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Neill

you like," and they all one by one came in, and I do not think they would wait so long on this occasion.

If the minister would allow me one other criticism, he did not give any weight to this fact, that a large amount of that increased old age pension would be paid to people who would otherwise be on relief, anyhow; they have to be kept; they are at our door; they are starving or at starvation point; we have to deal with them, and we do deal with them. Several of the provinces adopt what is now a popular idea; they say, "We have balanced the budget," and they add in a lower voice, "all except relief," which is two or three or five million dollars. But we have to meet that problem some time, and we might as well meet it-I think it is best that we should meet it-by giving a larger class of people old age pensions rather than by putting them on relief. A man of sixty-five may be willing and able to work; but he cannot get work, and there is only one alternative-relief. Is it not better to hand out national money in the form of an extended pension than by way of relief?

With any proposal to reduce the age, and indeed even though the minister cannot see his way to reduce the age at the present time, should go very definite steps towards putting on a fair basis the existing act and existing regulations. The act is all right so far as it goes. The regulations are not impossible, but it is the variety of contradictory and unfair interpretations which are put upon them by the various governing boards in the different provinces that make the trouble.

The minister has said, "We cannot compel the provinces to follow regulations that we suggest to them; we must get them to agree." The man who pays the piper can always set the tune. When we are paying seventy-five per cent of a given expenditure, it is always open to us in the future as in the past-we did it ten years ago^-to say, "You will conform to these standard regulations as you have to conform to the standard act or you will not get anything." I believe the dominion government has very largely the power, if it chooses to exercise it, to effect a more uniform and more reasonable interpretation of the regulations. The minister dealt broadly with this, so I think it is pertinent to the subject to allude to what I frankly call the rotten interpretations which have been put upon the regulations not only in the province I come from but in other provinces. In British Columbia we have the Parents' Maintenance Act, which compels children to maintain their parents. Prior to some three or four years

ago-they have now stopped the worst feature-the British Columbia managing board said to the old man or woman, "Go and sue your child or children. We will not give you any pension; wTe will not consider giving you any pension until you have produced an order from a competent court to say that the child is unable to support his parents." I have in my possession a letter in which they definitely say, "We will not give that man an old age pension unless he sues his child." I went and saw the child and found that he was living on six dollars a month relief. I admit that the British Columbia board has been shamed into abandoning that feature of their manoeuvres, but they are doing it just as badly in a roundabout way. They say, "Oh well, we are sorry, but the regulation now says we must take into account contributions by children." Here is the wording of it:

-which may reasonably be expected to be made by them.

Perfectly proper language, surely. But how do they interpret it? They interpret it in this way: They say, "This man has three children. He can reasonably expect to receive so much money from each of them. Therefore we will not give the old man (or woman) a pension." But somebody comes along and says, "Yes, but the children are not able to contribute. The son has a family of five children, and if he is not on relief he is drawing only a small wage. The second child is an invalid, and the third is on relief; therefore they are not able to support their parents." Obviously they cannot. But what does the board reply-and I have letters which confirm my statement-"We do not care anything about that. All we know is that this parent might 'reasonably be expected' to receive so much from that child, or those children, and therefore we will not give him a pension." They do not say any more, "Go and sue your child"; they simply leave it in that position, and the pension is withheld. They should grant the pension, and in the odd case of children able to support their parents and neglecting to do so, the board itself should sue the children.

I desire to touch on only some of the worst features. Another of the regulations is that in valuing the property of an applicant who does not have any income-if he receives any income he is, quite properly, charged with it- he shall be regarded as having an income equal to five per cent of its value. On the face of it that may seem just, but the way it works is extremely unjust. A lot of us in British Columbia bought land in the days when optimism was very flamboyant; we have the land and cannot pay taxes on it, and we

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Neill

get no income out of it; it is assessed at five times its market value. Suppose a man has some land like that, assessed at $3,000; five per cent on that is $150, and then there will be $50 of taxes to pay out. But the board says to that man, "You have an income of $150 from that land." The poor old man says, "But I have not; it is a source of loss to me; I have not been able to pay the taxes and I do not get one nickel from it." Nevertheless, the board says, "You have an income of $150." I know of many instances where that interpretation has prevented a person from getting a pension at all. You cannot live on theories and fictions. They say to that old man that he has a fictitious income of $150 and they expect him to live on that. Let anyone try it.

_ There is one feature of the matter, speaking of the British Columbia government, that I blame them wholly for, namely the way in which they have worked it out. The dominion government said that in valuing the land regard should be had to its assessed value or its market value, whichever is deemed the more equitable. Originally it did not say that; it spoke only of the assessed value. But it was found by experience that that was unfair. In Ontario it was found that the land was often worth more than the assessed value, so that it was changed to read the assessed value or the market value, whichever was deemed the more equitable. That is plain, and the British Columbia board refuses to obey the definite regulation. They will not take into consideration the provision, "whichever is the more equitable."

The real reason for the refusal is that they do not want to have the trouble involved, because if they took the market value they would have to make inquiries. It would not occur very often; but it would occur, and so they say it will save them trouble and they take the assessed value. Then, when I go and point out that the assessed value is five times the market value, they say, "Oh, no, Mr. Neill; you are impugning the integrity of the provincial officers, who are sworn to do their duty. They say that the property is worth $3,000 and it must be worth $3,000." I put before them an instance of my own personal knowledge where I was assessed S5,000 for some land. I appealed and took it to the county court-it was a town-and the assessor refused to go into the box and swear that the land was worth $5,000 because, as he truthfully remarked, "We all knew it is not worth that." The result was that it was cut down from $5,000 to $1,700. That is an illustration. The land is all assessed at far more than the market value.

You can easily understand that, because it has not been materially reduced for a number of years, whereas the market value has gone down enormously.

Now, that is something which the dominion government should insist on: they should say to the British Columbia government, "You must abide by the dominion regulations which we have enacted and to which you have agreed." Some of these instances I know personally; others have only been told me, but by people on whom I thoroughly rely. For example, one province refuses to accept an affidavit except from one resident in the province at the time the affidavit is made. I have personal knowledge of that. They have held up a pension for a time because the man had left the province for fifteen years. He had a reputable man, a minister of the gospel living in British Columbia, certify to his residence in the other province, but the other province would not take his affidavit unless the certificate came from someone at the moment resident in that province. What is the sense of that, or where is the justice of it?

I wrote to the board in one province with regard to one man asking why they gave him only $15 a month. I asked whether there had been any reduction on account of income. The man in charge wrote hack to this effect : "No. We give him S15 because we think that is plenty for any old age pension." "Pardon me." I said, "the dominion regulations say that if a man qualifies by residence and property-and you do not deny this-he is entitled to $20." But he insisted that $15 was sufficient for anyone. Moreover, he informed me that the administration of the act had given him satisfaction; he believed that he was carrying it out in accordance with justice, probity and so on; and he ended by saying, "This correspondence will now cease because we do not think that any good will come of it, and you are wrong. We will do what we think fit. If we chose to give him $5, we could."

I was not satisfied with this and I got the opinion of one of the best lawyers in Canada and flashed it at him. The result was that he climbed down and gave the old man $20. As a matter of fact they had been going on for years in the conviction that they could give anything they liked, and that there was nothing to stop them from giving anyone $10 if it happened to suit their whims.

Another province takes a lis pendens against the pensioner's property the day the pension is granted. Another refuses to pay so long as the applicant owns anything that can be turned into cash in excess of $30. In British

89S

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Neill

Columbia they demand a statement from a woman's son-in-law. The Parents' Maintenance Act provides that children must support their parents, but it says nothing about sons-in-law supporting mothers-in-law; and yet there must be the most intricate statements as to what the income of the son-in-law is for a whole year and three months separately as well. Affidavits must be obtained from employers, all of this being embarrassing and occasioning delay. There are a number of instances like this in which there is neither British nor any other kind of justice, and I think the dominion government should formulate regulations and compel the various provinces to adhere to them.

I heard a demand made this afternoon for a reduction in the age limit, and in the same breath the gentleman who made that demand stated that it was imperative that the pension should also be increased. That is a popular declaration among a certain number of poor people who think only of their own interest and cannot see a yard in front of them. But a member of the house who puts up that argument, asking for an impossibility of that kind, with the sure and certain knowledge that the dominion government must turn it down, so that he can go back to the country cherishing and brandishing this grievance and saying, "There is your government for you; they turned it down ''-either that member is doing it deliberately or he is acknowledging that he is not fit for the position of statesman in Canada to which we all would aspire, and he has no sense of his responsibility beyond the interests of his own particular parish. We all know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) cannot do that; he cannot reduce the age limit and at the same time increase the pension.

I would suggest two things: first, make pension regulations more reasonable and so inform the boards. I recall, when the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was on the government benches, we brought up some question in connection with soldiers' pensions. He admitted that there was an injustice and he said it would be remedied. Months later we asked whether he was going to bring in legislation to deal with it, and he said in his brusque way, "No; I have looked into the matter and all that is needed is a common sense interpretation of the military regulations. I have had a word with the chairman of the board and there will be no more trouble." And there was not. That is all I ask the minister to do. Tell these boards that while they are there to see that no one gets a pension to which he is not entitled, they are also there-and this they

ignore entirely-to see that everyone who is entitled to a pension gets it. I cannot say that of the British Columbia board.

Mr. DUNNING:

You appreciate the fact that they are not under our jurisdiction.

Mr. NEILL:

Yes, but this can be done by means of regulations. You can say to them,

" Here are our regulations; abide by them or we will not pay the seventy-five per cent." The man that pays the piper calls the tune.

In the second place, I would suggest that the minister reduce the age to sixty-five. Third, if it is necessary

and I believe it is- let there be instituted some system of contribution at the younger ages so that as they grow older they will have paid part of the extra cost. I have heard rumours of reduction of taxation in the coming budget; we should all like to see that, but perhaps it would be better and wiser and more fair to keep the taxes as they are for another year and cut the age for pension down as indicated. The cost would not be all lost, because there is no question that whether you call it relief or old age pension these people of sixty-five are on the shelf; they cannot get work and we cannot let them starve;they have to be kept and it would be better for their selfrespect and our dignity to do this in the form of old age pension.

I appreciate the fan manner in which the minister spoke. He put both sides of the case fairly, and I appreciate the sympathy he personally expressed, which I am sure is quite sincere. I -hope he will allow this resolution to pass, because it is not mandatory; it asks him only to look into the matter, and it would be at least an indication of our united sympathy with the object in view.

Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):

The

resolution before the house has been very well debated and I doubt if I can add much to what has been said. I should like first to compliment the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) upon his resolution, which brought from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) the very fine statement he made to the house to-night. I enjoy listening to the Minister of Finance. Every time he makes an excellent speech such as we heard to-night I say to myself that if, when he came to Canada, he had only settled in Ontario instead of Saskatchewan, he would have been a stalwart of the Conservative party in Ontario instead of in the Liberal party of Saskatchewan.

Mr. YOUNG:

Would you have a good man ruined?

Mr. LAWSON:

He wants to redeem him, not ruin him.

Old Age Pensions-Mr. MacNicol

Mr. MacNICOL:

I believe the hon. member, who just took his seat (Mr. Neill) referred to administration, and someone speaking earlier also said that there is a great deal of room for improvement in the administration of the act. I am convinced of that. There is a lot of chiselling in connection with this act. I might give two or three examples that I have come in contact with myself, and I have no doubt the number throughout Canada is legion. I have in mind an executive in a large manufacturing company who draws a large salary, but his mother, an aged widow, is an old age pensioner. If the act permits that, it is too bad. That certainly falls below what we should expect of Canadian citizenship.

Another instance I know quite well is that of a big merchant, whose mother and father are both on old age pension. One would think if that man had any pride in himself or in his country he would not permit that. Another instance I know, is that of a family in which there are three sons; they all belong to the professions and appear to be doing very well; they live in three fine houses, but their mother and father are also on old age pension. That is what I call chiselling. These are only examples of a large number. Any man in circumstances such as these who permits his parents to be on old age pension does not measure up to the standard a real Canadian should have. That is chiselling, and I am sure a great deal of money is wasted in this way.

Some hon. member said something about the Australian act. My memory is that in Australia the old age pension act covers everyone who reaches the statutory age, which I believe is sixty-five; but it is necessary to apply for the pension, and of course a large number of people who are comfortably off and able to take care of themselves do not make application. Another hon. member referred to workers under the railway unions and made a comparison between them and the ordinary working man. There is in fact little or no comparison between a conductor or engineer or fireman on a railway, belonging to the most powerful of the labour unions, which look after the interests of their members at all times, and a workman in a factory who is subject at any time to be laid off owing to a falling off in business. The cases are in no way parallel. Someone says that the railway pension schemes are contributory, but I know that railway conductors are retired at a certain age and have not contributed at all.

I know some myself; whether or not that is general I do not know.

51952-57J

Then someone asked, "Where would the money come from?" Of course that is an important problem. In looking over the old age pension legislation in ten of the United States, I observe that where the state has to raise fifty per cent of the cost of old age pensions, they have in some instances imposed new types of taxes to support this scheme. In one state they have added two cents a gallon on gasoline, and the federal government has added a tax of one cent a gallon on gasoline throughout the whole United States. It is certain that if this government does at any time embark on a scheme covering people reaching the age of sixty-five, no taxation should be considered that will add to the taxes on land, which is the municipal tax, or the taxes on business, both of which to-day are already overwhelmed with taxes.

The other Toronto members have doubtless all received to-day schedules such as the one I have received. Glancing over it I note what the city of Toronto has paid for unemployment relief in the last four years: 1933, 1934, 1935 and 1936. The gross expenditure was $34,308,585, of which the federal and provincial governments paid $21,981,029, leaving a net charge for the city to bear out of the only means of taxation it has, land, incomes and business, amounting to $12,327,556. I see further that while the city at the commencement paid unemployment relief out of yearly income, during the last four years they found it impossible to do that, and have funded the unemployment relief by five-year serial debentures to the amount of about $10,622,242. That means merely deferring the payment. So that this government, when it does embark on a scheme in accord with the resolution certainly should not levy taxes on either land or business, because business to-day is struggling under a heavy burden, and taxation on land is so high that scarcely anyone can be persuaded to buy property and build on it. One of the great causes of unemployment in the cities is the fact that there is much idle land on which no one is building because the tax rates are so high.

Then I find that a great many of the workers who have been unemployed during the recent years of depression, and who were not old enough to draw old age pensions, are losing their homes. It seems strange that when a man is out of a job and is without any income, everything he has to do adds cost to him. I have in my hand a bailiff's statement to a gentleman of my acquaintance. I shall not give the name; that is neither here

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Marshall

provides for a seventy year limit, but for many years they have had a contributory plan through which, having made contributions, about 18,000,000 Britishers are eligible to draw old age pensions.

May I take this opportunity to register my support of the principle of the resolution.

I am glad I have had the opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Finance upon the first-class presentation he made.

Mr. J. A. MARSHALL (Camrose):

Mr Speaker, when the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) was speaking, I had a feeling that the discussion would resolve itself into a debate on social credit. This feeling was further accentuated when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) took up a great deal of his time in speaking on this particular subject. I say to the minister that I have the authority of the Social Credit group to accept the challenge he has thrown out to us to discuss fully the principles of social credit. I sincerely hope that he will make an opening for us so that, before the present session of parliament closes, we may be afforded an opportunity of discussing in full this very important matter. I can assure him that we shall welcome that opportunity.

Mr. DUNNING:

Perhaps the hon. member would permit me to say that I cannot prevent hon. members from discussing it on any one of several occasions which present themselves automatically under the rules of the house, as the business of the house progresses. When I say that I welcome an opportunity, I am not conferring a favour; I cannot confer that favour. The rules of the house afford the opportunity, and I would welcome hon. members taking advantage of it. I am not in a position either to give or to withhold that favour, and I should not like hon. members to feel under any obligation to me.

Mr. MARSHALL:

It was my understanding that the Minister of Finance said he would be prepared to enter into a full dress discussion of social credit. Possibly I misunderstood his meaning.

Mr. DUNNING:

I think you did.

Mr. MARSHALL:

Then I regret I made that mistake. Without wanting to become obnoxious, let me assure him that on all occasions we shall endeavour to bring before the house what we believe to be the only solution to the economic ills which confront this country.

There are just two points in the address of the Minister of Finance which I should like to touch upon very briefly. I am not

prepared to enter into a full discussion of the matters he dealt with as they are too broad in scope. I believe I am right in saying that the minister was very careful to avoid admitting that there exists among those who are over the age of sixty years a condition which should be remedied. The next point is that, if we assume that premise to be correct, the financial condition of the country will not permit a scheme of this kind to be carried out. To me that is a definite admission that it cannot be done under the present economic set-up. I know that what I have to say matters little to the members of the house, but what was said this evening mattered a great deal to those of us who sit here as members of the Social Credit group. Repeatedly we have brought to the attention of the house the submission that this government should take control of currency and credit and use it in terms of public need. This afternoon we had the admission from the Minister of Finance that he as Minister of Finance of the country has control of currency and credit.

Mr. DUNNING:

No. I know my hon. friend does not want to put words into my mouth. I did not say that.

Mr. MARSHALL:

That is what I took it to mean.

Mr. DUNNING:

If my hon. friend will read Hansard in the morning I am sure he will not get any such impression.

Mr. MARSHALL:

I shall be glad to leave it until we get Hansard in the morning.

Mr. DUNNING:

I said that this parliament had created the instruments to control the credit and currency of this country. I did not say that I controlled it, although I suppose I am one of the instruments.

Mr. MARSHALL:

Which is an admission that the Minister of Finance on behalf of this government controls currency and credit.