=

illwrights' Training Program
Law Requires Tests f

Mr. Willies Sends Labour»

ster 0

4
peputy Min puildinsss

Parlioment

victorias me

Three Main Objections

Labor Scores Federal Pension Plan

The Canada Pension Plan
announced with great fanfare
by Hon. Judy LaMarsh last
summer had its good and bad
points, but as a first step, it
Was accepted by the Canadian
Labour Congress as being on
balance “good,” or at least

le.

On the basis of these pro-
posals the CLC launched a

campaign of support for the

Coming to
Vancouver?

STAY AT THE NEWLY
DECORATED

AUSTIN
MOTOR

- WONDERFUL COMFORT
AT LOW PRICES

ut in the heart of down-
n Vancouver —— Granville
; at Davie

refurnished,

with
facil-
150

plan as a step in the right di-
rection which was _ being
grossly distorted by inveter-
ate attacks by the private in-
surance companies.

Then came the revision of
the Plan by Prime Minister
Lester Pearson, succumbing
in part to the onslaught of the
insurance interests on the one
hand and the Ontario Robarts
administration on the other.

Now the Plan is “bad” on
balance, placing all who sup-
port a universal portable pen-
sion program on the horns of
a dilemma.

OLYMPIA
TAILORS

WE ARE PROUD TO
OFFER YOU

SHIFFER HILLMAN
QUALITY

TAILORED CLOTHES
®

A Large Selection of
Imported Materials

Tuxedo Rentals for
All Occasions

2425 East St.
(Nanaimo & Hastings Sts.)
Vancouver 6, B.C.

Rejecting it means cutting
off the “foot - in - the - door”
which must inevitably lead in
future years to change for the
better.

The trade union movement
is going ahead with its cam-
paign of support on the basis
of CLC President Jodoin’s or-
iginal statement that the Con-
gress “has endorsed the prin-
ciple of a public pension pro-
gram without endorsing all
the features of the govern-
ment’s proposal so far made

public.”

LOOK FOR THIS TAG

It is your guarantee of the
finest leather work gloves
made for your job — see
them at your focal dealers.

JOHN WATSON LTD.

127 2nd Ave. East, Vanc., B.C.

Mr. Jodoin’s statement re-
ferred to the LaMarsh pro-
posals so that there must of
necessity be more reserva-
tions about the revised edi-
tion.

THE REVISED VERSION

The revised formula (a
proposal to the provinces and
by no means the last word)
cuts down the maximum ben-
efit to $75 at age 70 (from
$100).

BUT the payments remain
the same — one per cent from
employee, one per cent from
employer. The payments are
based on a maximum income
of $4,500 so that the $75 bene-
fit is only 20 per cent of the
ceiling amount, instead of 30
per cent of the $4,000 origin-
ally suggested.

Where is the extra money
going? Into an investment
fund, two and a half billion
dollars in the first 10 years
plus interest.

Now this may sound a de-
sirable objective. But is this
the best way to get invest-
ment funds, mainly out of
the pockets of the lower-in-
come groups?

Why should not the pen-
sion money be all paid in ben-
efits and investment funds
raised through other well-
tried means?

Why should the plan be so
devised that a wage-earner
starting to pay at age 18 and
dying at age 64 would not
have a penny of the money
paid to his widow?

The “Pearson” plan then
has at least three main ob-
jectionable features:

1 The increased cost over the
original plan
2 The reduced benefits

3 The funding feature (for
investment purposes) is
based on regressive taxa-
tion. It hits the low-income
harder than the high in-
come.

But after all this is said, it
must be remembered that 72
per cent of wage-earners have
mo pension coverage today
(apart, of course from the
basic old age pension at 70).
While they may have to be
grateful even for little mer-
cies, it should be remembered
that over six hundred million
dollars ($600,000,000) worth
of pension plan contributions
are paid in to private sources
each year. No question about
it — the insurance companies
will defend this profitable
business in a big way.

The fight for a better Can-
ada Pension Plan must not
be given up.

s