The CHAIRMAN:

I think the hon.

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

Mr. NICHOLSON:

I will conclude briefly

by saying that the minister has not performed a useful public service in raising the sort of

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

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

What is the proportion paid in Saskatchewan as compared with Ontario?

Mr. NICHOLSON:

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

Mr. MARTIN:

Might we discuss the bill

rather than my political convictions?

Mr. NICHOLSON:

I should like him to

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

Mr. MacINNIS:

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

Old Age Pensions

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

Mr. JAQUES:

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

Mr. MARTIN:

I suggest that this is out of order.

Mr. JAQUES:

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

Mr. MARTIN:

I would ask for a ruling, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JAQUES:

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

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr. QUELCH:

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

Mr. JAQUES:

I have not criticized what we did with regard to our own emolument, and I have no intention of doing so. We did it-

and I am quite sure everybody in the house was perfectly honest about it-because we all realized that it was impossible to live on the old indemnity in view of the increase in taxation and the cost of living. My only point in mentioning that is that, if we could not live on our indemnity, how can we expect thousands of our old citizens to live on $1 a day? I say they cannot live on that. And if they cannot, what are they to do? That is what I want to be told. How are they to live on $1 a day? It certainly is out of all reason to expect them to do so in this day and age. If there were any prospect that the amount would be increased next year, the situation might be different. But apparently this is to be more or less permanent. I understood the minister to say a few minutes ago that the pensioners cannot live on that amount, and they are not supposed to live on it. WThat are they to do, then? There are thousands of people who are too old to work or are physically incapable of obtaining work for which they may be paid. I appeal to hon. members not to worry about how it will be done. Anything physically possible and desirable can be made financially possible. I shall not say any more except make one final appeal to the government to think of these old people, most of them helpless, who are condemned to live on $1 a day.

Mr. QUELCH:

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

The CHAIRMAN:

Order.

Mr. QUELCH:

At least I did.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr. QUELCH:

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

Old Age Pensions

$2,000 for the members of this house in consideration of the fact that we were intending to bring down a decent rate of pensions, not only for the old age pensioners, but for all people who are physically incapacitated.

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