Miss Aitken:

I believe the Department of Labour should do a little educational work of its own in trying to make not only young people but all unemployed people have a

Vocational Training

feeling of training-mindedness. A recent survey has shown some discouraging results as to how many women would be willing to take courses if they were available. They have given several reasons for their unwillingness to participate in courses. In the first place they do not want to take courses because of a need for immediate financial returns. Second, they have home responsibilities. Third, some have insufficient educational background.

The other day Mr. William Thomson, director of employment services for the unemployment insurance commission in Ottawa, rather turned the penny over in regard to the subject of unemployment and employment. He said that Canada's chief employment problem today is not to find work for unskilled labour but to fill vacancies in professional and highly skilled categories.

I feel that this resolution is extremely welcome at this time, and I believe it to be a long-sighted project.

Miss Aitken:

We are getting there. In my constituency of York-Humber there are

Old Age Pensions

hundreds of old age pensioners. I know how much they appreciate these improvements. I know they would appreciate receiving $75 a month, too, and I sincerely hope we can raise the old age pension in the not too distant future.

Canadians are responsible people, Mr. Speaker. They know that we cannot take on welfare measures beyond our means. I believe there are approximately 875,000 old age pensioners in Canada today and this number is increasing all the time as longevity increases. The socialists who have been rejected again and again by the Canadian people now pull out of their hat the figure of $75 a month. Why $75 a month? I have here a brief from the national old age pensioners' federation and they suggest $85 a month payable without a means test to all citizens on reaching age 65. Why not $85? Or better still, why not a nice round figure like $100 a month? It is so easy for the socialists to introduce these irresponsible amendments knowing that they will never have to meet the problem of the heavy expenditures involved. The socialists talk about free hospitalization, free medical care, free pensions, free pie in the sky. Of course, it is downright dishonest on their part to make these irrational statements because nothing is free. Somebody has to pay for all these things and it is not governments that pay for them. Governments do not have money and so it is the taxpayers who pay for them.

From the province of Saskatchewan we have heard a lot about free medical care. The government of Saskatchewan certainly has no money to provide free medical care except what they take from the unfortunate taxpayers. It is the duty of responsible governments to try and assess how far Canada can go in its social welfare. I believe that responsible governments must gear social welfare to our economic capacity.

The question has come up today, do we want a system such as the United States has or do we want a combination of our system and of the United States personal contributory system? It took the United States 22 years to build up a fund that pays a minimum of $33 a month. If we scrap our system, how long would it take before we could build up a sound fund that would pay $55 a month? It seems to me that our $55 a month for everyone is much fairer than the United States system. Under our system you cannot get higher pensions nor can you get lower pensions. Theirs is a system whereby the rich get richer, that is higher pensions, and the poor get poorer, or lower pensions, which are based on the amount of the contribution

through the productive years. I think our system under which everybody gets the same is the best one.

Then, the dream of having our system plus the contributory system I think is a good one. I hope in time that we have it, but I am looking into the distant future because it will take many years to build up a sound contributory fund; and looking into the near future I also hope that we can raise the old age pension in a responsible and sound way.

Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that everyone in the House of Commons would like to see the old age pension and other pensions increased. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and gathered that they are wholeheartedly in support of increased pensions. I find it difficult, however, to reconcile their words of today with their actions of the past because when they were in a position to do these things they simply did not do them.

We have heard a lot about the great social measures that the previous government brought in. I should like to put on the record some of the things the Conservative government has done in the past three years because I believe that no government in Canada has ever laid as great emphasis on human needs as this government has. I feel sure that if the Conservative party had not been elected in 1957 our older citizens would still be receiving a pension of $46 a month. It was not until the Conservatives formed the government that the pension was raised to $55 a month. It was not until the Conservatives formed the government that an injustice was removed which made it necessary that people should have lived in Canada for 20 years before they were eligible for any pension. The domicile period was reduced to 10 years by the Conservative government. It was not until the Conservatives formed the government that another injustice was wiped out through this government abolishing the regulation which provided that old age pensioners had to live in Canada in order to be eligible for the pension. These are just a few of the measures we have introduced to date, a few of the step by step improvements that this government has brought about in our social measures.

Miss Aitken:

Yes, righteous indignation. He is so full of righteous indignation that one really never knows what is going to happen. As a farmer, he is indignant over farm problems. As president of the Martin bureau of statistics, he is indignant over unemployment. Now, as a former minister of national health and welfare, he is indignant over the improvements we are making in our social security measures. He is an extremely versatile man. However, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Timmins, he leaves us up in the air. We do not know whether he is supporting this bill to help our old age pensioners or whether he wants the old age pensioners-

Old Age Security Act

Miss Aitken:

The hon. member says he is supporting it. That is the best speech he has made today.