1937-03-16

[Stage Direction]
First report of the standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Moore.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): I wish to lay on the table of the 
house the final report on the unemployment relief scheme for the care of single, homeless men, -as administered by -the Department of National Defence, 1932 to 1936. I do so in the absence of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie).


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: I lay on the table the Canadian National Railways budget for the year 1937. If I may have the unanimous consent of the house, I move, seconded by Mr. Michaud:
That the financial statements of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian National Steamships for the current year, laid on the table of the house this day, be referred to the standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I desire to lay on the table of the bouse the text of the resolution adopted by the senate of the United States on June 16, 1936, advising and consenting to the ratification of the convention respecting the sockeye salmon fisheries of the Fraser river system. I find there is no other correspondence to lay on the table.



BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): I lay on the table copy of the report made by the Bank of Canada on the financial position of the province of Saskatchewan dated March 8, 1937.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Several of my colleagues have suggested that it might be desirable to print the report of the Bank of Canada on the Saskatchewan situation. It is a matter of grave public interest and I think the suggestion is not unreasonable having regard to the importance of the matter from the point of view of the nation as a whole as well as of the community concerned. Perhaps the minister would consider whether or not the report can be printed.

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Neill


Mr. DUNNING:: I think the same remarks would apply to the report previously tabled with respect to Manitoba.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite.


Charles Avery Dunning: The bank is now beginning an examination with respect to the province of Alberta. I will look into the question whether it is practicable and desirable to print the report separately. If any are printed I think it will be agreed that all should be.



BURLINGTON BEACH TUNNEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe). Did the minister promise federal aid to the extent of fifty per cent of the cost of the proposed Burlington beach tunnel?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The minister did not. It is purely a provincial matter.



NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: On Friday last the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) asked a question about the fire-boat Pluvius at Vancouver. This boat was built in Norway in 1904 for use as a whaler, and was purchased and brought to Vancouver in 1931 for use as a fire-boat. Her annual cost of operation has amounted to 831,500. As will be seen from the date of construction, the boat is very old. It was condemned by the marine department as unsatisfactory, and repairs were ordered which would cost in excess of 828.000 before a certificate of seaworthiness could be issued after December 31, 1936. The whole situation was considered'. It was found that the boat was totally inadequate for the service required. There had been two major fires in the harbour since the Pluvius was put in commission in 1931, and in neither case was this boat able to render the slightest service in checking the fire. The harbour commissioners therefore approached the city with the request that they join in considering some more efficient means of fighting fires in Vancouver harbour, and I understand the matter is still under consideration between them.



OLD AGE PENSIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 42, to amend the Old Age Pensions Act.
Mr. NEILL:: Is the minister not going to speak now?


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not intend to say anything further on the motion for second reading beyond what I said on the introduction of the resolution. The principle of the bill, which is adopted at this stage, is I think unanimously concurred in by the house, being the granting of pensions to blind persons at the age of forty years. The detailed provisions can be much more easily considered in committee than on the motion for second reading, and I was hoping we might go right into committee, when I shall be prepared to deal with every phase of the matter.


Alan Webster Neill: I
should like to say something on the general principle of the bill-certainly not in criticism of the minister; rather I congratulate him upon bringing it down. There might be some possible criticism in committee as regards the provision relating to two blind people marrying, but that I realize is for the committee stage. And I know the minister will not allow us to open the act in so far as old age pensions generally are concerned. But there are phases of the situation, and the manner in which the Old Age Pensions Act is now being carried out, which could legitimately be debated now, because they will affect blind people, as they will be subject to the same conditions. Therefore I should like to draw attention briefly to two or three of them.
The act itself is the Old Age Pensions Act. There is little to find fault with in it except that I think we should all be glad if the government would allow the eligible age to be reduced say to sixty-five years; and there are some provisions as regards residence qualifications which we would like to see changed. I realize that it would be out of order to move an amendment of that kind to this bill. It is of the regulations made under this act, some of the conditions to which blind people will be subjected, that I wish more particularly to complain. I am free to confess, as far as I am concerned, that the objections and complaints are largely due to the manner in which the British Columbia government carry out their understanding of the regulations.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not under this act. My hon. friend is discussing British Columbia legislation.


Alan Webster Neill: Quite so. The Parents'
Maintenance Act of British Columbia contains a provision under which any body or any person can sue. I said to the pension board, which is under the control of the British Columbia government, " Give the old man or woman the pension to which he or she is entitled now. Then you go ahead and sue their children, whom you think should pay." There are very few cases in which there are children who are so unfeeling as to allow their old parents to accept the old age pensions if they can afford to support them.


Charles Avery Dunning: There are a great many in Canada.


Alan Webster Neill: There are not a great many in British Columbia, but in such cases 1 believe the mere threat of the board to sue would be sufficient to compel these children to look after their parents. In many other cases, however, the slightest investigation would show that the children were unable to contribute anything. A son may have three or four children of his own, and be living on relief.


Charles Avery Dunning: And a man may have $40,000 or $50,000.


Alan Webster Neill: I would suggest that the old man or old woman be given the pension, and that the board should sue such children and expose them in public. That would be far better than saying to the old woman, " You go and sue your son." She has neither the desire from the human point of view nor the money to sue her children. I am only suggesting that this act should be administered in a different way, so to speak.
Then there is another petty ruling-I cannot say it is a regulation, because this is purely a demand by the British Columbia board- which is used as a pretext to refuse or delay applications. I just came across it the other day, and I only mention it because it is one of many such rulings. To try and. get an old age pension in British Columbia is like trying to get into the senate; it is just about as difficult and takes just about as long. Members of parliament have to do these things

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Neill
for nothing, and they involve a tremendous amount of work. In the case I have in mind an old couple had been in Saskatchewan for a number of years, having come from Nova Scotia originally. They had) gone to church in Nova Scotia and when they moved to Saskatchewan they met the same pastor there. Later they all came to British Columbia, and the old people came to the district which I represent. On their behalf I applied for an old age pension, and in British Columbia you must furnish an affidavit by someone who knew them for a certain period of years in the province where they previously lived. So I had this reverend gentleman, a minister of the gospel of high standing in Vancouver, sign an affidavit that he had known these people in Saskatchewan, and that they had been there for the required period of years. It took me some time to get that affidavit signed, and then it was returned to me by -the board in Vancouver with an intimation that it would not suffice, that I would have to get such an affidavit from someone now resident in Saskatchewan. This old couple bad been away from Saskatchewan for ten or fifteen years, and after the lapse of that space of time it was very difficult to find anyone who remembered! them during the period they were there. This reverend gentleman, this man of God, of good repute, well known in Vancouver, swore that he had known them in Saskatchewan for a number of years, but that was not sufficient. Heaven only knows why:	this
could have been checked up very easily, since ' this gentleman lived only a few blocks from the board's offices in Vancouver, but his affidavit was not sufficient, so we had to dig up somebody in Saskatchewan, which was very difficult.
I do not see that public funds are guaranteed or made safer in this manner. Apparently these regulations are designed to make as much trouble as possible. Since I am on the subject, I remember taking up some cases with Hon. Mr. Gordon, when he was Minister of Labour. I named half a dozen cases in British Columbia, and he undertook to investigate them. I remember one particularly bad case. The answer that came to him was, "We have no evidence in this office that this woman is even seventy years of age." I had been citing her case in this house, and had said that this woman had been unfairly treated and discriminated against. They came back with the retort, "Why, Mr. Neill has not even proved that the woman is over seventy years of age," which, of course, is an elementary qualification. Mr. Gordon naturally put that up to me, and what was my -explanation? She had put in her application an-d had sent in 
her birth certificate. Her application was refused, and they sent the certificate back to her, accompanied by a letter saying that they noted that she was over seventy years of age. But when the minister took up the case they were technically correct in saying there was no evidence in that office as to her age, because they had sent the certificate back to her. That was deemed sufficient answer to my complaint. I can give the minister particulars about it, if it will do good-.
Then, I have here the form-it is an elaborate one-setting out some of the information required; it is not required by regulation or by the act. It takes about an hour and a half to fill out the sheet, and then the information given must be wrong, because it almost invariably comes back.


Charles Avery Dunning: But it does not relate to this act.


Alan Webster Neill: It relates to the carrying
out of the act.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not under the act at all.


Alan Webster Neill: And as I say, I am not attacking -the minister or-


Charles Avery Dunning: Or this act.


Alan Webster Neill: I am trying to suggest that the minister should take power to tell the people in British Columbia that if they want to get their money they will have to administer the act according to our act. Is that not a proper idea?
This is some of the information they want: The name of the child; relationship; age; number of dependent children; full address; married, single, widower, or divorced; occupation ; name of employer of each son, daughter or daughter's husband; his employer's address, and his earnings for -the past twelve months. A woman may have a daughter married to a man with six children. They must have information about -his employer, and the employer must put in a return of the employee's wages for the last twelve months, and for the last three months, month by month.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not under this law, or under the regulations.


Alan Webster Neill: That is what I am complaining about. I am glad to hear the minister say it is not under this law.


Charles Avery Dunning: I just wish to say that what the hon. member has been saying has not been about the bill now before the house, not with respect to this statute, but with respect to some statute in the province of

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Neill
British Columbia, which, it is true, to a certain extent ties in with the operation of the present old age pension law. That is one of the difficulties which arise where partnership arrangements exist between the dominion and the province. I must say however that it is conveying a false impression, because I think every complaint of the hon. member is with respect to British Columbia administration and British Columbia law, not the law we are discussing to-day.


Alan Webster Neill: Then I have totally failed to make my meaning clear. I did mention the British Columbia law, namely the Parents' Maintenance Act, but that was only incidental. Now I am talking, and have been from the start, about the action of the British Columbia board under regulations made by this act.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend said it was not under the regulations.


Alan Webster Neill: I said it should not be; that is what I meant. Here it is, headed "Old Age Pension Act; application for a pension," and it is done by authority of this act.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no.


Alan Webster Neill: And by regulations made
under the act.


Charles Avery Dunning: No; the hon. member
forgets there are old age pensions acts in every province, by which each province may authorize its government to enter into an agreement with the government of Canada, under the provisions of the federal act. The province may and often does impose conditions in and for the province which are over and above the conditions imposed by the federal act and the federal agreement.


Alan Webster Neill: Again that is not the situation. In the first place, the Old Age Pensions Act provides for agreements to be made between the provinces and the dominion.


Charles Avery Dunning: Right.


Alan Webster Neill: Specifications are made in an agreement which is arrived at, and signed. All a province does is to pass an enabling act, agreeing to the agreement.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, it is more than that.


Alan Webster Neill: It is not permitted under our act to impose any conditions in British Columbia different from those in Alberta. For instance, there could not be a provision for twenty years' residence in Alberta, and ten years' in British Columbia.


Charles Avery Dunning: No; with respect to that kind of condition the hon. member is correct.
But my statement is nevertheless correct with respect to conditions other than the one he has mentioned.


Alan Webster Neill: The conditions about which I am complaining are not carried out under any British Columbia act. They are carried out under the powers of the federal act. When I say, "Who is administering the Old Age Pensions Act in British Columbia?" I am told it is the board in Vancouver. It is the workmen's compensation board that administers it. They say they are not bound by any law of the province. When they are administering our act they take advantage of the regulations under the act. What I am complaining about is that they go beyond those regulations and1 invent restrictions of their own, which are not under the dominion law or authority at all. That is the point I am trying to make.


Charles Avery Dunning: But it is not correct.


Alan Webster Neill: Our act does not allow them to ask about the earning of a son-in-law; there is no suggestion of that.


Charles Avery Dunning: Would the hon. member permit me to speak?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: But the British Columbia Parents' Maintenance Act does allow them. Under the British Columbia law the same board is administering that and other acts for the province.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, but this form I have in my hand is not sent out under the Parents' Maintenance Act.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, well-


Alan Webster Neill: As a matter of fact the Parents' Maintenance Act does not extend to sons-in-law and daughters-in-law. It is the pension board which puts it in, and that is the point of my complaint. I say they are not adhering to the dominion law, they are not adhering to the provincial law; they have a law unto themselves. They are making these fool regulations-


Charles Avery Dunning: And they are responsible to the government of British Columbia, not to this government.


Alan Webster Neill: When I ask that in British Columbia they say, "Oh, it is under the dominion act; you will have to go to them." I got into trouble with the minister there. He said I had no business going around blaming the province for the way they were carrying out the act, the way the Minister of Finance suggests I should. Then I went over to our Department of Finance and
Old Age Pensions-Mr. Leader

they told me, "We only operate to the extent of seeing that they are making no unjust demands, but we cannot put any pressure upon them to do even what is right." I submitted certain cases to them, and said, "What do you think about these?" They said, "We would pass that in a minute. Why does not British Columbia O.K. it? We would do it." I said, "Can you not make them do it?" and they said, "Our authority goes only to the extent of saying that we will or will not make certain payments. We cannot say that they ought to pay something." I think that is correct-the minister nods his head.
Then I went back to British Columbia, and I was told that that was not so-passing the buck again. They said what their principal object appeared to be, and communicated it in a letter. They boasted that in a number of years past they had never had one case rejected by the dominion authorities, while they could point to other provinces where as many as four hundred had been rejected. The obvious answer was that that was exactly what I was kicking about. Because if a case came within a thousand miles of the limit they would not grant it; that was the trouble, and then they boast that never once were their cases turned down. They are leaning back so far in their fear that the dominion government might possibly refuse a case that they are rejecting cases that the dominion government would be willing to pay. That is one of my complaints.
I have a letter under my hand which I shall not read, but the contents of which I shall state briefly. One of these cases was to be put through, and the board said-not the regulations; not the act-" You must show us what your son-in-law and daughter-in-law earned in the last year, and in the last three months individually." One of the sons was teaching school up in the Peace River district, and it took a lot of time to get word back from him. His school trustee was really in the position of an employer. To shorten the story, may I say that he sent in his income tax return, but the people in Vancouver would not accept it, or the affidavit which came with it. They said they had to have a statement signed by the actual school trustee. By the time that had been accomplished, due to delays in winter service three months had gone by. The board then said, " You sent us in a return for the three individual months of January, February and March, but it is now May; we want another return for February, March and April "-and the whole performance had to be gone through again. Was anybody's interests or property protected by that? No,

it was nothing but red tape from beginning to end.
I wish to bring to the attention of the house something which happened a few years ago under the present leader of the opposition. It will be remembered there was a lot of fuss about soldiers' wives and about red tape causing a great deal of trouble. We asked the right hon. gentleman about it across the floor of the house, and he said he would attend to it. Later in the session he was asked whether he was going to bring in legislation, and he said, "No, I do not think it is necessary; all that is needed is common sense application of the act. I have had a word with the chairman of the board." From that day to this we have had no particular trouble in that connection. It was not the act; it was not the regulation, but it was the foolish way it was carried out by the people concerned. That is the condition in British Columbia. There was an election in British Columbia in 1933 and at that time I told the people that perhaps with a change of government they would get a better deal. There is another election coming on and I am afraid I shall have to tell them the same thing.
I am trying to convey one point to the minister, but I do not appear to have succeeded. I am sorry if I have not succeeded, because I have been desperately in earnest about this matter. I suggest that these people should be told that if they are going to draw funds under this act they must administer the act in a reasonable, decent and common sense way. They must conform with the regulations of the act and not administer it according to their own private opinion. Apparently they have got the tip not to spend more money than they can help, and they are doing that.


Charles Avery Dunning: There was no such tip from here.


Alan Webster Neill: Not from Ottawa, from
Victoria.


Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, if this is the proper time, I should like to make one or two observations. I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), and if I understood him aright, he is asking that in interpreting the Old Age Pensions Act we should make it easier for the applicants to obtain pensions. I do not see why the authorities should take it for granted that these applicants are committing perjury or stating something which is not in accordance with the truth, especially when the local authorities are there to vouch for the declaration. Instead of making it harder for these people

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Dunning
to get a pension, we should make it a3 easy as possible, provided they are able to fulfil the first requirement of establishing that they are seventy years of age and entitled to a pension.
I understand there is a provision in the Old Age Pensions Act to the effect that an applicant must have lived in the province for five years immediately prior to making his application. There was some reason for that provision when the act was first drafted, because at that time only two or three provinces undertook to work with the dominion. It is quite easy to understand that old people in a province which was not taking advantage of the provisions of the act would drift into one which was. I understand that now all the provinces have come under the provisions of the act. If that is so, I think it should be sufficient when a person proves that he is seventy years of age and has lived in the dominion for twenty years without regard to any particular province. I know of one case where a man eighty years of age who had lived for the last thirty years in Alberta moved into my constituency in order to be near his son. This man is destitute and cannot get a pension because he has not been in Manitoba for five years. Because he preferred to come to Manitoba to be with his son, he cannot get a pension. I do not think that is right.
The other observation I want to make is in connection with the blind. I feel sure the minister will have every sympathy with what I am about (to say. I understand that this bill provides that a blind person applying for pension must have had five years' residence in the province in which application is made. Is that right?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance):	Mr. Speaker, I did not expect
that this bill would start a discussion on old age pensions generally. If I had, I would have made a statement in that regard at the outset. I am debarred from speaking now, but I can answer my hon. friend's question very briefly. This bill assumes that a blind person is seventy years of age when he attains the age of forty. That is the sum and substance of it. There are one or two provisions which make it a little more favourable to blind persons than to others, but the main factor is the assumption of the age of seventy when the age of forty is reached. If a discussion is to be permitted on old age pensions generally, I would crave the indulgence of the house to be permitted to make a statement in reply, although I am out of order in so doing.


Harry Leader: I have been requested to
bring this matter before the minister and I am doing it to the best of my ability. I think that anyone labouring under the terrible handicap of blindness should be able to obtain a pension provided he has lived in the dominion, without its being necessary to prove residence of five years in the province immediately prior to his application.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions.
Mr. GREEN:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one or two suggestions to the minister and also express one or two thoughts with regard to this bill, which I trust will be helpful to him. I think every hon. member is in favour of the principle of the bill, and I believe it has the support of practically every person in the dominion. The thought in everyone's mind is that it will help a very deserving group of Canadians who are seriously handicapped in their struggle to take a worth while part in the life of the nation. This being the spirit in which the bill is received, I think that now is the time for us to make certain that the administration of the bill and of the Old Age Pensions Act which it amends will not defeat our intentions. We should make sure that the act will be administered in the way in which we intend it to be administered, and in the way in which the people of Canada believe that it will be administered.
This bill provides for pensions for the blind by extending the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act. When the bill is passed, the Old Age Pensions Act will provide pensions, not only for our elder citizens who have reached the age of seventy years, but also for blind Canadians who have attained the age of forty. Ten years ago when the act was first before the parliament of Canada it received practically unanimous support both from the members of that parliament and from the Canadian people. They had much the same thought in mind as is in our minds to-day, that is, that the legislation would help a deserving group of our people, in that case the needy old who otherwise might be forced to spend their declining years in want and probably in suffering.
My submission is that the old age pension was never intended to be a dole or a form of relief. When the act was passed ten years ago we had no such thing as a dole or no such thing as relief. The old age pension was intended to be a pension payable to a worthy
Old Age Pensions

group of our people. I refer the committee to the terms of section 8 of the Old Age Pensions Act, showing the class of people whom it was expected to help. Under clause (a) a person, in order to get this old age pension, must have been-
... a British subject, or, being a widow, who is not a British subject, was such before her marriage.
Under clause (c), the applicant must have-
. . . resided in Canada for the twenty years immediately preceding the date aforesaid.
And under clause (d) he must have-
. . . resided in the province in which the application for pension is made for the five years immediately preceding the said date.
But by reason of the regulations which were adopted under the Old Age Pensions Act, and the administration of the act and these regulations, the old age pension has come to be considered a form of relief. My suggestion is that that is not good enough, either for British Columbia or for any other province, and I suspect that the conditions are just as bad in the other provinces as they are in British Columbia.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, they are not.


Howard Charles Green: Well, that is all to the good. The trouble arises not so much because of the terms of the act, which on the whole are fair and just, but, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has said, because of the regulations made under the act and the administration of those regulations; over the years in the hurly-burly of building up a system for administering the act and particularly during the depression, when cuts were made in services in all directions, the tendency has been to restrict the application of the act and to make these older Canadians feel that they are paupers when they apply for the old age pension. I should like to give the committee a few instances. I must refer of course more particularly to British Columbia. First I would quote regulation 18 (d). That is a regulation passed under the dominion act, not a regulation under an act of a province. It reads as follows:
For the purpose of determining the income of any applicant, the pension authority shall take into account any of the following sources of income:
In British Columbia the pension authority is the board set up by joint action of the provincial and dominion governments.


Charles Avery Dunning: And this regulation also.


Howard Charles Green: Yes. But this board is or should be subject to some direction from the dominion government.


Charles Avery Dunning: No. Where do you find that in our law?


Howard Charles Green: Well, they are administering the act for the dominion-


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Howard Charles Green: -and the dominion is paying three-fourths of the money. If we have not any authority over them it is time we did have some.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, that is the point.


Howard Charles Green: Clause (d) reads as follows:
Salary, wages or other means of livelihood, whether in money or in kind, which the pensioner may reasonably be expected to receive.
The pension authorities have worked that out in this way, that they require particulars of thcs children of the applicant for a pension, and then they say to the applicant: "Why do you not use the Parents' Maintenance Act and go to the courts and get an order against your son or against your daughter to the effect that he or she must maintain you?" As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has said, a parent will not do that. There is authority under the provincial Parents' Maintenance Act of British Columbia for a municipality or the province to do that, and I think that regulations could be drafted to provide that it would be the duty of the province or the municipality to lay a charge of that kind, rather than requiring this drastic action to be taken by the applicant for an old age pension.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does the hon. member realize, when he says that regulations should be devised to do so and so, that in connection with this matter such regulations must be the subject of agreement between the provinces and the dominion? He is missing the essential difficulty of legislation of this kind. We cannot compel the provinces to agree to a regulation which we, the dominion, suggest. Later on I shall make a statement with respect to the matter.


Howard Charles Green: My suggestion, Mr. Chairman, would be that the Minister of Finance call the provincial ministers of finance together and make some agreement on this point.


Charles Avery Dunning: They have been together.


Howard Charles Green: The lead in all these questions must come from the dominion parliament. I suggest that this government should give the lead-

Old Age Pensions


Charles Avery Dunning: That has been done.


Howard Charles Green: -and call the finance ministers of the provinces together and see whether proper regulations cannot be drafted.


Charles Avery Dunning: That has been done, not only by this government but by the preceding government.


Howard Charles Green: It would not do any harm to try it again. Another unfortunate thing that is done by the pension authorities is that where the daughter of an applicant is married-it may be, to a man who presumably has some means-the pension authorities will say to the applicant, "Your son-in-law must keep you." Just think what an impossible position it is-that a parent applying for a pension has to go to the son-in-law and ask him for support! Goodness knows how many of his own relations that son-inlaw may be keeping or what his actual financial position may be. The ruling is simply ridiculous. Are the blind people of Canada to be subject to administration of this type? Are they to be subject to similar regulations? If they are, I am afraid they are going to be very much disappointed with this bill.
Then regulation 18 (b) provides that for the purpose of determining the income of any applicant the pension authority shall take into account any of the following sources of income:
(b) Real property at the rate of five per centum of the assessed or market value thereof (whichever be considered the more equitable standard), exclusive of encumbrances.
That, too, is a regulation of the dominion government, passed by the governor in council. I suggest that it is entirely unreasonable. The test should be whether there is any income earned from this property. Why should an old person lose out because he happens to have a vacant lot or a building that he cannot rent? There is no income from either. I suggest that this regulation should be altered. I believe, too, that the applicant for a pension should be allowed to own his or her own home up to a value of, say, $3,500, or, if that is too much, at least to the value of $2,500, and that home should not be taken into consideration in arriving at the amount of the applicant's income.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend think that the provinces would consent to that?


Howard Charles Green: Well, the dominion is paying three-fourths of the amount of the pension. I do not see that the provinces have 31111-115
very much ground for objection to regulations that the dominion lays down. I believe the Minister of Finance will find that the provinces will not object very strenuously to such regulations.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid that my hon. friend does not know the provinces.


Howard Charles Green: Of course there is considerable pressure of public opinion brought to bear on provincial governments as well as on the federal government, and they may not be as unreasonable as the minister expects. Perhaps the minister might look more favourably upon a suggestion for a change in the definition of residence as contained in regulation 10 (b):
10.	An applicant may be presumed to have been resident in Canada for the twenty years immediately preceding the date of the proposed commencement of the pension if he-
Then (a) sets out the time he must have lived in Canada:
(b) has not within the said twenty years been absent from Canada for more than 731 consecutive days . . .
And so on. My suggestion is that the test should be, not absence from Canada, but change of domicile-"should have been domiciled out of Canada for the period of 731 days," which means two years. In many cases applicants lived in England during the war for over two years, and the result is that they are now not eligible for pension al-thought all the time their domicile was actually in Canada.


Alan Webster Neill: In some cases they could not get back from England.


Howard Charles Green: If the Minister of Finance cannot consent to a change of that kind, I suggest that at most the pension should be reduced only by the proportion of time during which the applicant was out of Canada. Section 9 of the act is, I think, too stringent. It provides that:
The maximum pension payable shall be two hundred and forty dollars yearly, which shall be subject to reduction by the amount of the income of the pensioner in excess of one hundred and twenty-five dollars a year.
That means that the old' age pensioner can only-


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, this is out of order.


Howard Charles Green: -earn ten dollars a month, and I suggest that that should be increased to at least twenty dollars a month.
There is one other matter that should be dealt with by the government and that is the application of the Old Age Pensions Act to the Yukon.

Old Age Pensions


Charles Avery Dunning: This is entirely out of order.


The CHAIRMAN:: I agree with the minister; the hon. member is out of order. He is discussing the Old Age Pensions Act and this deals only with pensions for the blind.


Howard Charles Green: This bill is an amendment of the Old Age Pensions Act, the terms of which I am therefore in order in discussing. Since the act is to be amended to provide pensions not only for the agedl but also for the blind, surely I am in order in discussing the terms of the act itself.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not want to insist, but I did not anticipate a general discussion on old- age pensions. I thought the principle of the bill was decided on second reading, namely, the question whether or not the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act should be extended1 to blind people at the age of forty instead of at the age of seventy. I did not on second reading take the liberty myself of discussing the present position of the Old Age Pensions Act; I considered that I was discussing the principle of the bill before us. There is no provision in this bill for changing the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act. This is simply a bill to extend the provisions of that act to blind persons at an earlier age than seventy. I will not block the discussion if the committee wants it to be free and to let everyone take part and go all over the place. We are now on section 1 of the bill. I shall abide by your own judgment, Mr. Chairman, or by the judgment of the committee, whether we shall go all over the place in considering section 1 of the bill in committee.


Howard Charles Green: I purposely refrained from speaking on the second reading of the bill so as to help the minister get it into committee.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a poor way of assisting.


Howard Charles Green: I did not expect that I should be told at this stage that I should have spoken on the second reading. However, I am about through and I should like to be allowed to finish.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of the terms of the bill the hon. member is perfectly within the rules in discussing the bearing upon this particular provision of the other provisions of the act.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the ground the hon. member for Comox-Alberni took in discussing it on the second reading.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are now at the first section of the bill, which is an amendment to an existing section of the act, the substitution of another for it, and the hon. member is pointing out the relation of this change to the other provisions of the act. This section defines the word "pension," and we have right through the whole bill changes in the existing legislation. As I listened to the hon. member, he was only elucidating the point he desired to make by reference to other provisions and regulations of the act; that is all.


Charles Avery Dunning: The discussion is now on section 1 of the bill. I agree at once that any relationship between the subject matter of section 1 of this bill and the section of the present act to which it refers is competent for discussion at this time, but I do suggest that the definition of the word "pension"-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That opens up the whole matter. "Pension" means a pension payable "in accordance with this act and the regulations hereunder." That is what the hon. member has been discussing.


Charles Avery Dunning: That means that we have no rules of order in committee-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is unfair.


Charles Avery Dunning: -and that on any section of the bill one may discuss anything in relation to the act which it amends.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Depending entirely on
the terms of the amendment. This amendment substitutes a new meaning for the word "pension," namely, that "pension" shall mean a pension payable in accordance with the act and the regulations thereunder. The hon. member has been analyzing what pensions were payable under the act and the regulations under the act; he has been analyzing the regulations for the purpose of ascertaining payments payable under (a) the act, and (b) the regulations.


Howard Charles Green: If I may be allowed to go on, I wish to speak briefly about the pensions that are payable to people who have been resident in the Yukon. The position with regard to these old Yukoners, old pioneers who went there in 1898, is this. Many of them as they have grown old have broken down and have come out to the cities of Vancouver and Victoria; then after they have been there perhaps six or seven years they reach the age of seventy years and apply for the old age pension, but they are told that though they are seventy and have been in Canada twenty years they can get only $6 or $7, depending on the length of time the applicant has been in British Columbia. The

Old Age Pensions
applicant cannot get anything for the time he has been in the Yukon, because the Old Age Pensions Act does not apply to the Yukon.
I would refer the minister to the report of the Department of Labour for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1935, at page 63:
While legislation was enacted by the Yukon territorial council in 1927, which empowered the gold commissioner of the Yukon territory to enter into an agreement with the governor in council to make the system effective in the territory, the proposed scheme of administration, which must be approved by the governor in council before an agreement can be entered into, has not yet been submitted.
These old Yukoners are being deprived of their full pensions and yet the dominion government would be responsible for seventy-five per cent of the portion of pension which they cannot draw. Furthermore, I believe that the dominion government would be required to pay the whole thing because they finance relief in the Yukon. I put a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) last year and I would refer the committee to page 2782 of Hansard:
Mr. Green:	If the old age pension scheme
were made effective in the Yukon territory, where would the money come from? Would that money be raised by the Yukon territorial council or would it come from the dominion government? As the minister knows, the provinces pay one-quarter of the old age pension. If the scheme were made effective in the Yukon, where would that one-quarter come from?
Mr. Crerar: It would come from the territorial government, and I assume in the last analysis it might really be provided for by the federal government.
Mr. Green:	The federal government would
really have to pay the whole shot.
Mr. Crerar:	It is federal government territory.
Mr. Green:	That would not come out of
local taxes raised by the Yukon council.
Mr. Crerar:	I could not say, speaking
offhand.
I suggest that these Yukoners are being deprived by the national government of the pittance which the people of Canada expected would be paid to them and which they believe is being paid. In my opinion the Old Age Pension Act should be made applicable in the Yukon from now on and provision should be made for paying the full pension to those whose applications have already been dealt with.
When the Old Age Pensions Act was passed it provided that the dominion should pay half the cost of pensions and the provinces half. In 1931 the late government increased the contribution of the dominion to three-fourths and provided for the examination and audit of all expenditures by the provinces and 31111-1151
of the accounts of the provinces. This means that this national parliament is the body most directly concerned in the administration of the old Age Pensions Act and further that this parliament must assume the bulk of the responsibility for the administration of the act. Certainly we are going to take the whole of the blame if the act is not properly administered.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is very evident.


Howard Charles Green: My suggestion to the minister is this-and I believe it is a constructive suggestion-that he should have a thorough investigation made at once into the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act in the different provinces, and that he then make any necessary changes in the regulations and in the administration. I would suggest further that that investigation be not made by a commission-we have had enough commissions, for a time at least. I suggest that it be made by an official of the department. I have far more confidence in the department-


Charles Avery Dunning: It is going on all the time.


Howard Charles Green: Well, I ask that some representative be sent right across Canada-


Charles Avery Dunning: It is done now.


Howard Charles Green: -and that he call in delegations from or representatives of the different old age pension associations. These old people have been getting together in the different cities in a social way, and I suggest that they be called in and given a chance to explain the points in the administration with which they are dissatisfied.
This government should spare no effort to make sure that the intention of parliament and of the Canadian people is carried out in the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act, namely, not that the act should be used to provide relief or a dole, but that it should help to make the lives of our blind people and the last years of our own old people happier than they have been.


Mr. MacINNIS:: When this legislation is passed will it be necessary for the provinces to enact legislation to make this measure effective within their respective jurisdictions?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. That is why I am trying to hurry it on now.


Angus MacInnis: If the provinces take advantage of this measure, by enacting provincial
legislation, will the regulations now covering old age pensions be also applicable to pensions for the blind?
Old Age Pensions


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: If that is so I think the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) were quite in order.


Mr. HEAPS:: I am very sorry to hear the complaints of hon. members from British Columbia regarding the administration of the act in that province. I do not know that the complaints apply generally throughout this country. There are some provinces where perhaps the administration is not as rigid as it is in British Columbia. However, it is well to bear in mind that this act came into operation not quite ten years ago. It was in a way new legislation-


Charles Avery Dunning: Experimental.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The legislation was not
adopted as unanimously as the hon. member for Vancouver South thinks. There was quite an acrimonious discussion in this chamber before it passed. Not only that, but in the senate the measure was thrown out, and it was only in 1927, after the election in 1926, that it was passed by the senate. That, however, is past history. There are at present in Canada, including Quebec, about 150,000 people receiving the benefits of the Old Age Pensions Act.


Charles Avery Dunning: At least that number.


Abraham Albert Heaps: When the Old Age Pensions Act was framed it was something new as far as Canada was concerned. Something had to be done to overcome the difficulties inherent in our constitution. I have no doubt that many of the regulations which have proven so irksome to some are the result of constitutional difficulties. The five year residence clause was one of the problems which provoked a good deal of thought and discussion at the time. But in view of the fact that all the provinces, with the possible exception of one, have adopted the principle of old age pension legislation and have come under the act, I feel that now is the time for the government to see whether changes could not be made in the regulations, as suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The agreement is for ten years.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes, but I think the provinces would not object.


Charles Avery Dunning: I know four of them
which would.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The five year clause?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, for obvious reasons. I know British Columbia would object because it would tend to increase the load on that province, which is a more desirable place for old people to live than some other parts of Canada. That is the whole story. The provinces consider these matters in relation to their own peculiar interests. I know, because I have discussed it with them.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I remember some arguments being used in this chamber about ten years ago-


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not argument. I
have discussed that possibility with the provinces.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Well, it is an argument controverted by the facts, because the percentage of old age pensioners in British Columbia is no greater than it is in other provinces. If the five year residence clause were abolished I doubt whether many old people would care to leave the old homesteads and familiar surroundings for the purpose of living in British Columbia. The number of pensioners in British Columbia at the present time is no greater proportionately than in Manitoba; in fact the most recent figures I could get showed that the number was somewhat less in British Columbia. If the minister through his department would confer with the provinces and see whether something could be done along that line, I would be content to abide by the decision so arrived at, and if the provinces objected to the deletion of the five year residence clause we in this chamber would have nothing further to say.
Another matter which the minister might take into consideration, and one that creates a good deal of feeling amongst prospective or actual recipients of old age pensions, is the right of provincial authorities to put a lien on property in the possession of pensioners. I do not know whether this would apply to the blind; if not, I need not refer to it, but if it does, the argument applies. Suppose an old person is in possession of property worth $2,000 or $3,000-I have known of many such instances. He may have a small home which he has owned for twenty or thirty or forty years, but before he is entitled to receive the benefit of the Old Age Pensions Act he is compelled to assign that property over to the provincial authorities. I do not think this parliament desires to be so harsh with old people as to compel them to give up such small properties. Many old people, being loath to part with their little possessions, resort to subterfuge in order to evade

Old Age Pensions
that provision. I am wondering whether we could not be a little more generous now than we were in 1926 or 1927, and abolish that regulation.
Another point which I think also comes under the present bill relates to the question of earnings. Under the existing legislation a recipient of old age pension is allowed an income of $125 a year over and above his pension. He is entitled to have a total income of $365 a year, including $240 pension. If the pensioner has an income of $200 a year over and above his pension, the amount of pension is reduced. I think that restriction on the earnings of pensioners should be done away with. They should be entitled to a larger income under the act, and the same should apply in respect of the blind people who may come under the present proposals. I draw this to the attention of the minister and the government. I know they are sympathetic and I appreciate the bringing in of this legislation. It is one of the best things they have done since they came into office; for although the number of pensioners may not be great, it is because of the principle embodied, and the satisfaction it will give to so many people, that the bill has been received with interest and approval throughout the length and breadth of Canada.
May I say one further word. As I pointed out a moment ago, this bill is something new so far as this country is concerned, just as the old age pension legislation was something new when it was brought in. At that time the government had to find ways and means of overcoming the difficulties presented by the British North America Act, so they took the course of making an agreement under which the provinces could come under the provisions of the bill. Where there was a will there was a way, and I am pointing this out to the house and to the government for the simple reason that if there is the will to overcome the difficulties inherent under our constitution, ways and means can be found just as a way was found to bring in old age pension legislation. If our government really desired to bring in other social legislation, which is long overdue in this country-such as unemployment insurance, minimum wages and maximum hours of labour-they could find ways of overcoming the difficulties in that connection also.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): I wonder if I might be permitted now to say a few of the things I might have said on the second reading of the bill, and possibly thereby shortened the
discussion. What has been said causes me to preface my remarks by saying that more than 150,000 people in Canada are now receiving old age pensions.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Has the minister the exact number?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not the exact number, because Quebec just came in a few months ago, and is adding to the number very rapidly month by month. We are anticipating some thirty thousand from that province by the end of April, which would bring the total closer to 160,000 people who are in receipt of old age pensions.
I think it is proper for the minister whose unpleasant duty it is to try to guard the treasury to point to that fact in view of the discussion which has taken place to-day, which to a casual listener would indicate that the Dominion of Canada has not been carrying out properly or generously the provisions of the law. The amount which will be required from the federal treasury commencing on the first of next month in order to pay old age pensions during that year will be $27,500,000. That sum of money represents the dominion's share only, and does not include anything for the cost of administration, which is borne by the individual provinces under the terms of the agreement and the legislation.
With these figures before it, Mr. Chairman, I think the committee will at least reach the conclusion that the cases which have been cited this afternoon by practically every previous speaker must be the exception rather than the rule, and that there is a much more humanitarian administration of old age pensions generally across Canada than the discussion in this house this afternoon would lead one to believe. In fact I am bound to say this: The administration of the act, in so far as it concerns the relationship of this dominion, until just prior to the change of government was entrusted to the Department of Labour. Difficulties between the provinces and between provinces and the dominion, as a result of the peculiar arrangement necessary under our constitution to make a scheme of this kind work, had accumulated down through the years, and I believe it was my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) who decided that in future the administration of the act should be under the Department of Finance, inasmuch as it concerned a financial contract between the provinces and the dominion. With that decision I have no quarrel, except that it does put on the Minister of Finance the not too pleasant task of
Old Age Pensions

trying to deal with the awkward' situations which develop because of differing conditions in different parts of Canada and different views taken by provincial governments and legislatures as to the manner in which their responsibilities under this act should be carried out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was it actually transferred before the government went out?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, just before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know we appointed
inspectors as well.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. That brings me
to the second point, and I am sure my right hon. friend will not find fault with me for saying that the reason for appointing federal inspectors was not from the point of view expressed in this house this afternoon, that the provinces were not sufficiently generous in their treatment of individuals, but from the point of view of protecting the federal treasury.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is something it is
necessary for me to say. During the short period I have been in office I have had an opportunity only from time to time, in the midst of pressing duties, to see how this inspection work is getting on. But as a result of that examination, on the last occasion on which the provincial ministers were together, at the meeting of the national finance committee, I advised that body-it being representative of the provinces-that from what we had discovered up to that time with respect to the administration of the act we hoped they would agree that there should be a meeting during the year 1937 solely for the purpose of going over the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act, taking into account what the dominion inspection-only recently instituted, remember-had revealed by way of, yes, by way of abuses, by way of disparities in administration in one place as contrasted with another; in short, with a view to taking account of the accumulated experience of nine years of experimental administration of this kind of legislation, in order to see if we could not agree on measures necessary to bring about improvement.
I frankly confess that from the point of view of the Minister of Finance there is much more to be said with respect to tightening up than with respect to loosening up, and I am bound to say that there can be produced not one but hundreds of oases where people having property-and not property worth one or two thousand dollars, such as has been

mentioned here this afternoon-managed to obtain old age pensions. It had not been discovered until after they had died, and then only through a circumlocutory process, that they were possessed of real property and a real income. There are not a few cases, also, of people who have sons and daughters, not poor and with big families, but well off, who do not look after their parents but leave them on the old age pension.
It is unpleasant to say these things, Mr. Chairman, but it is my duty to say them. In my judgment there is a sufficient number of those cases to outweigh any cases of individual hardship such as those to which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) referred. I say that without detracting at all from the point the hon. member made, that any injustice should be susceptible of cure. I do not dispute that for a moment. I only deprecate rather the tenor of the discussion this afternoon, which has been so one-sided, assuming that authorities all over the country were trying to deprive of the privilege people who ought to have old age pensions. I can assure the committee, on my responsibility as a minister, that the abuses-yes, I will say it-are very great in the opposite direction, and in my opinion demand the attention which can be given only by a conference of the contracting parties to the agreement. Let us not forget that there are two contracting parties. Our part is clearly set out in the law; it is the payment of moneys to the provinces. It has been said that we should make conditions with respect to the payments we make, and that we should say, "If you do not do this, we will not give you your money." I have had experience in trying to make that form of control-


Richard Bedford Bennett: You seemed to make it stick in the wheat board.


Charles Avery Dunning: -effective, in connection with the provinces and old age pensions, and I am bound to say it is not a very effective sort of control. I am one who believes that the problem can best be solved by the kind of reallocation of powers, responsibilities and taxing powers as between provinces and dominion as would transfer the sole power, the sole authority and the sole responsibility in the matter to the dominion government. But I do say that in considering the suggestion hon. members should not for a moment think I am advocating the transference of a responsibility to the dominion without the transference to it also of the sources of revenue which would enable the dominion to carry out the responsibility so transferred. I say that because the figures involved in our present old

Old Age Pensions
age pension scheme, without regard to any extension of it or any reduction in the age limit, which would obviously increase the expenditure, are large. Judging by an examination I had made a few weeks ago, from an actuarial point of view, even if we do not change the conditions or age limit at which pensions are payable, by 1941 if we continue on the present basis, and if the proportion of those over seventy now receiving old age pensions carries on through that portion of our population which in the future will attain the age of seventy, the expenditure will be $46,000,000. By 1951 it would be $62,000,000.
I think I need not go farther than that, because (the projection beyond 1951 involves an estimated increase in population, which of course is a debatable factor.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo) :: May I ask the minister whether these figures are estimated on an increase in population?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


James Samuel Taylor: Only on the administration of the present act?


Charles Avery Dunning: Pension payments have been computed on the assumption that fifty per cent of the population aged seventy and over will receive pensions of the average annual amount now being paid. The average number of the population seventy and over will increase very considerably in the future, which will mean that a larger proportion will exhaust their own resources and a smaller proportion will be able to contribute to their own support.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Why does the minister claim that the number of people over seventy will increase so rapidly in the near future?


Charles Avery Dunning: Mainly due to the fact that in the past the increase in population has to a great extent come from immigrant sources at adult ages. That is the actuarial reason. The sources of our population in the past having been immigrant sources, at adult age upon arrival in Canada, the certainty of increase in the pro-portion of population at ages over seventy to the proportion at productive ages means a rapidly increasing load for a country whose resources are not unlimited.
The figures I gave are on an actuarial basis, and the rapid increase is due to the fact I have just stated, namely that a larger proportion of the population came to the country as immigrants and had reached an adult age upon arrival.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Based upon the present
records of the census department?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; I cite these figures to indicate the prospective load. I may tell hon. members the occasion for asking for them; it was the very rapid increase during the current year, and the demonstrated necessity for what looked to me to be the very large sum of $27,500,000 for the next year.


Mr. TUCKER:: According to the budget
speech I think the amount is $22,500,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: For the current year?


Walter Adam Tucker: No, for the coming year.


Charles Avery Dunning: For the coming year it
is $27,500,000.


Walter Adam Tucker: Then it is misprinted in
the budget speech.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is $22,500,000 for the
current year which closes at the end of this month, and $27,500,000 for the next fiscal year.
I think the hon. member will find it in the estimates now before the committee of supply. However I shall not speak with absolute assurance, as I am apt to make mistakes, and may have made one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought the estimate
was based upon the fact that the possibilities were unknown because of Quebec having recently come in.


Charles Avery Dunning: To some extent that is true. Because of the facts I have endeavoured to state, and because of the statements made by hon. members who have spoken, statements which of course reach me from complaining parties in various parts of Canada, it is the intention, hope and expectation of the government to have a meeting with the provinces specifically devoted to old age pension administration, to old age pension regulations, and generally to the whole matter, between now and the next session of parliament.
There are many difficult positions to be cleared up. When in recent interprovincial gatherings old age pensions have been mentioned, the diversity of opinions at once became apparent, as did the diversity oi experience, of desire and of conditions in the various provinces. That made it very difficult indeed to take old age pensions as one subject in a general conference and expect to get anywhere on a matter in connection with which there must be a substantial measure ol agreement among the provinces on one hand, and between the provinces and the dominion on the other, in order that improvements in connection with administration may be effected.
I do not think I can usefully add anything further in a general discussion, except to say that the government is fully alive to the
Old Age Pensions

difficulties inherent in this class of legislative and administrative cooperation between two sovereign authorities. It is not easy to work it out. We in this parliament do not dominate the situation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do not call them sovereign authorities.


Charles Avery Dunning: There might be some
question; I believe we have had statements from high sources recently as to how sovereign they really are.


Mr. STEWART:: Mr. Chairman, I think every hon. member is interested in the question of the administration of old age pensions. We have to meet it almost daily when we are at home. I hope there will be some good results from this discussion.
Conditions have changed since the act was placed on the statute books. As I recall it, at first the dominion and the provinces made equal contributions to defray the expenses of old age pensions. I think it is agreed by all that no deserving person should be deprived of an old age pension; on the other hand a designing person should not be able to get a pension unjustly, unfairly or improperly. The difficulty arises in finding a type of administration to cover both cases. As I said, the basis of contribution has changed since we started out. At first, when the provinces and the dominion contributed equally, it might be assumed that their interests were on an equal basis. Then the provinces passed on a certain amount of the expense to the municipalities, in some cases as much as half.


Charles Avery Dunning: It varied.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It varied from one province to another. I think the initial difficulty arose through the fact that the boards which determined who should be entitled to old age pensions were largely municipal. I am afraid that in some instances, for one reason or another, sufficient care was not exercised in the granting of old age pensions. Let the reasons be what they may, I think we know some of them. In some provinces the share contributed by the municipalities was decreased and their interest became different. Then the share of the provinces was decreased and their interest is not what it was. I suggest to the minister that a change in administration is necessary.
I have had people come to me and ask me to fill out their forms for old age pensions. I have examined them carefully and in some instances have declined to go any further because I was certain they were not 
entitled to pension. To my surprise they would go to someone else, get their forms filled out and obtain their pension. There is undoubtedly an impression abroad that if you work through the right political channels you will obtain an old age pension, and if you do not, you will not. Rightly or wrongly, that is the impression in the minds of many applicants for old age pensions.


Mr. YOUNG:: Are you speaking of Ontario?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am speaking of what I know.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: In what province?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In Ontario, and I should not think it would be any different in any other province. We all think alike when it comes to getting something from the government for nothing. I suggest that it is necessary to make a complete change in the administration of the act. For a long time I have felt that applicants for old age pensions should be required to appear before a county judge in chambers and make out their cases. You would thus be able to get an impartial, honest and candid report, without political bias or political influence. I think the provinces would be safe in acting upon such a report, and the dominion could confirm the action of the province.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is one of the suggestions coming up for consideration.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am glad it is to be considered. It seems to me that that would relieve men in public life of much embarrassment. We all know the pressure that is-brought to bear to have these applications-granted for old age pensions. People think, that if you are a member of parliament you should be able to get an old! age pension for everyone who applies for it. If you do not, well, look out-you will be punished next time.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Mr. Chairman, I was not present in the chamber to hear the speeches to which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) referred, but I feel like agreeing with him, which I am sure will be a surprise.
I believe that there are more people trying to get pensions who do not come within the scope of the act than there are people who do come within the scope of the act but who cannot get pensions. I do not think there has been any great difficulty in Ontario in connection with people who are entitled to pensions not getting them. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) suggested that political influence had something to do with it. If that is so, where would the independent old age pensioner come in?

Old Age Pensions


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He would probably work both parties.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I have not found that to be so. People who have supported me for many years have been able to get old age pensions.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think that would be a help to them.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I believe in some cases the pension is held down too much, due nearly always to information given by some person living close to the applicant. I have investigated some of these cases, but nearly always I have been able to get them straightened out. When a person reaches the age of eighty or eighty-five years, $20 a month is not sufficient to live on. There is generally an expense for some sort of attendant. Someone in the house where he lives has to spend a good deal of time taking care of him. Something additional should be paid to people of eighty-five and over. I have received many letters, and I dare say other members have also, from very old people who find they cannot manage because something must be paid out for some sort of nursing care.
I do not know how many of these elderly people would have got through the depression had it not been for the provisions made for them under this act. I congratulate the government upon bringing down this bill to provide for the blind, but I regret that the last government did not do it. Doctor Cotnam did excellent work in bringing this matter before the house again and again. It is true he was assisted by others, but he took the responsibility, and I should have liked to see his government bring down this measure when he was in the house. However, I am thankful it is being brought before us, and I am doubly thankful that the age limit has been reduced to forty years. I was afraid' the age limit would be higher, in which case the bill would not have been as useful.
There is just one other thing I should like to say, and I dio not think the Minister of Finance will enjoy hearing this. There is another class of people for whom we should provide. I refer to those who are totally disabled from increasing arthritis and such diseases. They are disabled sometimes quite early in life, and certainly, for a good many, around an age at which the blind are to receive pensions. There are a great many men and women who suffer intense pain and also the humiliation of not being able to do anything for themselves, and the feeling that they are a burden upon their families or their friends. I suggest that the minister should consider to provide very soon-I hope, at
the next session-for an extension of this act to take care of totally disabled persons, for whom life would be hard even though they had a pension, and is almost unbearable when they have none.


Charles Avery Dunning: In reply to the hon. member's last point, I know she will wish me to say this: the question of extending the act to the blind at the age of forty was made the subject of discussion at two provincial conferences; hence I am able to state to the committee that the provinces are unanimously willing to adopt it. My hon. friend can understand that with respect to any other extension along the lines suggested by her it would be necessary to secure a very considerable measure of assent, if not complete consent, on the part of the provinces. Having in mind that picture, I shall be glad to continue to give consideration to the classes she suggests.


Mr. McIVOR:: Mr. Chairman, being one of those who most energetically urged the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) to bring in this measure last session, now that we have it I should like to see it enforced in the same way that the Old Age Pensions Act is administered' at Fort William. No political pull whatever is used. There are old people on pension who qualified when the former minster of railways was representing Fort William, and there is no flavour of politics at all in the administration. I pay my tribute to the responsible officer in Fort William-I venture to use his name; he is our city treasurer. Mr. McNaughton. He has three rules. The case must be deserving-and he knows; the applicant must produce his age certificate or be able to establish his age in some satisfactory way, and he must have lived in Canada for twenty years. Every individual whom I have brought in to the city clerk has been most courteously treated; we are never given the feeling that it is the city clerk's money we are after. When there has been some difficulty in getting a certificate of age, I have not found, as the hon. member for Comox-A'lberni (Mr. Neill) seems to have done, that they would not take the word of a minister of the gospel; even his word is accepted when it is reasonably evident that the facts are as stated. I am profoundly thankful that the government have seen fit to introduce the bill at this time and1 not leave it to the year before election.


Charles Avery Dunning: With respect to the figures I gave a few moments ago, it has been called' to my attention that I might have left a wrong impression by giving, as
Old Age Pensions
common:
I did, the actuarial rate of increase and not stating that the amounts mentioned would be for the total cost of old age pensions, both dominion and provincial shares.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Could the minister give at this point the number of pensioners in the various provinces?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have that information
approximately with respect to all provinces except Quebec. As Quebec is so large and the act is just coming into operation there, the variation would be quite considerable. I have the information here and will give it as soon as I can lay my hands on it.


Walter Adam Tucker: In regard to party politics entering into the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act, my experience is that in Saskatchewan it has been administered without any thought of intrusion of party politics, whatever may be the practice in Ontario.
I wish to bring to the attention of the minister a specific ease illustrating a class to which hardship is caused through a regulation passed by dominion authority. I have it in mind that two people in my constituency, a man and his wife, went to California seven or eight years ago, intending to stay about a year, but one of them having fallen ill they remained about two and a half years. They then returned, and are now in destitute circumstances. They homesteaded in this country and with the exception of the two and a half years I have mentioned they have lived here over forty years, but now they are told that they must reside in Canada for practically another fifteen years before they can qualify for an old age pension. In other woi'ds if your stay outside Canada runs to two years and five days you have to wait after you come back for another twenty years before you can qualify for a pension. I think the rule is too rigid, and I have suggested and do suggest that, based on 'the present rule of allowing two years' absence from Canada out of twenty years-in effect one month out of Canada for every ten months residence in Canada-the rule should be modified so that if you have actually spent, say, two and a half years out of this country you should be able to qualify for a pension provided you have lived in Canada for, say, twenty-five years. In other words, you should be allowed an extra month's residence outside Canada for every ten months over twenty years of residence in Canada. That would provide for the people I have referred to, and others who, though they were out of Canada for a little over two years, have lived in Canada for twenty, twenty-five or thirty

years, but cannot get a pension and have no hope of getting one for, in some oases, another fifteen years. Such a provision would
cover quite a number of very deserving cases in Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: The residence rule is
the most difficult of all rules to administer. My hon. friend will see at once, of course, that if we make some provision such as he suggests, immediately those who cannot quite fall within it will have the same ground of complaint. However, I have no doubt that even though I wanted to, I could not prevent a detailed discussion upon the application of the residence rule when the various provincial representatives confer with respect to old age pensions. I will admit at once that the feature to which the hon. member has refenred has given the government much concern.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the absence has been
to set up a new home, of course they should not claim the benefit under the act.


Charles Avery Dunning: But the difficulty is to
prove these things. Then we encounter my hon. friend from Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill), who objects to red tape, and red tape is a term used whenever an effort is made to protect the treasury by investigation; that is the charge which is made by everyone, of course.
In answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps), who wished to know the number of pensioners, I can give him only this information as of September 30, 1936, with an amendment which I will mention at the conclusion:
Number of pensioners
Alberta	 8,644
British Columbia	 10,480
Manitoba	 11,281
New Brunswick	 8,728
Nova Scotia	 13,410
Ontario	 54,960
Prince Edward Island	 1,693
Saskatchewan	 11,259
Northwest Territories	 7
Total	 120,462
At the end of December the total was approximately 130,000, but since that time Quebec has reported 21,000, and we are advised that by the end of April there will be
30.000	from that province. So that I was quite within the mark when I said between
150.000	and 160,000 at the present time.


Mr. CLEAVER:: The suggestion has been made by the hon. member for Leeds, I believe, that the administration of the pensions act in Ontario is under political influence. I do not think that suggestion should go unchallenged in view of the fact that some

Old Age Pensions
months ago the administration of the act in Ontario was changed, with the result that it is now administered by the local municipal clerk and treasurer. I do not know of any class of officials who are less politically minded or less biassed politically than the local clerks and treasurers appointed by the municipal councils, and while political influence may have had much bearing in the past I do submit that we should give the present set-up a chance to function for a year or two before we start criticizing too freely.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The hon. member has not quite caught the point I was endeavouring to make. I tried to make it clear that on the part of applicants for old age pensions there was a belief that the administration was political or that political influence could be used to advantage on their behalf. I did not openly charge that those in the municipalities responsible for making the report were actuated by political motives, especially more recently when, as the hon. gentleman says, the set-up has been improved. There is no doubt there is a temptation to make political capital out of the granting of old age pensions, and I would not want to tell my hon. friend of some experiences I have had in that respect. I hope that what he says is true and that conditions are improving. I do think, however, that it is desirable to remove any such temptation, and that can be done, I believe, by having the matter dealt with as I suggested, by the county judge. I think my hon. friend will agree that it is desirable that there should not be any suspicion or any belief on the part of the applicant or anyone else that the granting of an old age pension is dependent upon political influence. I do not think the hon. gentleman will deny that in some quarters there is that belief-that in some instances political influence may be used, should be used, can be used, or has been used, in support of an application for an old age pension.
Mr. 'CLEAVER: I have had that feeling in the past, but I understood my hon. friend to suggest that the applicants should go before a county judge and make out their case. I am pointing out that they now have to go before a local official who is just as independent and non-partisan as a county judge. They must go before the clerk and treasurer and make out a case. I say, let us give the present set-up a Chance and see how it will work out before we criticize it too freely.


Mr. THOMPSON:: Has the minister any record of the proportion of old age pensions paid to urban and to rural municipalities in the different provinces?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, we have not.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: My own experience is that in the county where I live it is a rare thing for a farmer or a man living in a rural district to receive the old age pension. The great majority are from the urban municipalities.


Mr. McCANN:: My experience in connection with old age pensions leads me to agree with the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart). I do not know of an election that has been held in the county of Renfrew since 1926. either federal or provincial, in which the administration of old age pensions has not been the subject of discussion, and people have been led to believe-both political parties have, been sinners in this regard-that if this or that party were in power old age pensions would be more easily obtained. The suggestion which the hon. member for Leeds has made is in the right direction, and the very course that is being taken at present, the applicant having to go before the county clerk and a board of the county council, leads me to believe-


Hughes Cleaver: No, that is out; it is the local clerk and treasurer.


James Joseph McCann: They are still passed on to the county.


Hughes Cleaver: No.


James Joseph McCann: I beg your pardon. I
believe his suggestion is a step in the direction of bringing people before the proper judicial authority in the county, namely the county judge. When that is done there will be more of the spirit of fairness and equity in the granting of pensions or in the recommendations that are made.
The fact that we have so many people getting old age pensions is to my mind an evidence of the absolute lack of recognition of moral obligation by the children of those who are receiving the pension. They lose entirely that sense of obligation to their fathers and mothers that was possessed by the children of two or three generations ago. To my mind, the reason for that is that perhaps we are indulging in too much paternalism in this country. There is no sense of obligation on the part of sons and daughters to-day, at any rate in a great number of instances,
Old Age Pensions

and the sooner a sense of responsibility is brought home to them the better it will be for themselves, for their parents, and for the morale of the people in general.
The Minister of Finance has told us that as the years pass we are going to have an increased burden in connection with the pas'-ment of pensions. It seems to me that we tackle the thing at the wrong end. Why are so many people blind? In the. schools for the blind in London, England, fifty per cent of those who are there are there because of venereal disease. What is this country doing, either through the Department of National Health or through the provincial departments of health, to educate the people so that they may ward off these diseases? We discuss the little tutti-frutti grants from the federal government to the national institute for the blind, and give only S13.000 for maternal and child welfare and to carry on education at a time when it is needed and when it might prevent that blindness. In that regard I think we should be much more careful than we are in the medical examination of prospective immigrants to Canada. If we are to cut down the ever increasing sum which it will take to pay pensions to the blind we must start a good deal further back and do something towards the prevention of those diseases that contribute so largely to blindness.
I am not in favour of the policy of this or any other government paying seventy-five per cent of the total expenditures and not having under its jurisdiction complete control of the expenditure of that money. It makes no difference whether you hand it over to a Liberal administration in Ontario or Quebec or to any other type of administration of whatever political colour. When you are paying 75 per cent of the money you should have complete and absolute control of how it is to be spent. If politics are entering into the administration, it is because provincial governments say:	The
dominion is paying 75 per cent; we are paying only 25 per cent, and heretofore we have passed on part of that to the municipalities; we can use it as a political lever. The whole system needs revamping, and anything we can do to prevent the diseases which cause blindness and to control the expenditure of the moneys which we collect from the people in taxes will be a step in the right direction.


Angus MacInnis: References have been
made to-day to political influence in the getting of old age pensions; and the administration of the act in British Columbia was severely criticized, and I think rightly so.

But as far as I know there is not any political interference with old age pensions in British Columbia.


Alan Webster Neill: Hear, hear.


Angus MacInnis: From that point of view I think the act is very well administered. The	same	board that	administers old age
pensions administers workmen's compensation, and it has been very free from criticism ever since it was appointed in 1916 or 1917.
I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann), but there seemed to be a certain contradiction in the statements he made. First he said that	old age	pensions	and other kinds ofpensions are paternalism going to extremes, and	then	he	wanted	paternalism in theprevention	of	disease.	I am in agreement
with him on that, but looking after old people is not a matter of paternalism; it is necessitated by the development of our social and economic institutions, which has made it impossible for people to provide for their old age themselves. In fact, it has made it impossible for people to provide for themselves in their youth and manhood; so how can they provide for old age? Not very long ago people working on a farm were able to do a little useful work until they died, but such is not the case to-day. If you read any of the reports of industrial institutions you will find that to-day people are put out of industrial employment, not at the age of sixty-five or seventy, but at the age of forty-five, and their chances of getting into employment again if they lose their jobs at that age are very slight. So this question of old age pensions and other pensions results directly from the development of our economic and social life, and we can no more avoid it than we can avoid the variation in the seasons.
Regarding venereal disease, I was going to raise that question when the estimates of the Department of National Health are before the committee. I read a lecture recently given by Professor C. E. A. Winlow, director of the Yale school of public health, in which he referred to the ravages of syphilis in the United States. There has been considerable discussion of this disease in British Columbia, and the minister of education, who is also provincial secretary, made the statement that some 150,000 persons in British Columbia suffered at one time or another from some form of venereal disease. In other countries they have taken steps to deal with this very important question. Professor Winlow said:
Such free service reduced syphilis in England by about one-half. In the Scandinavian countries where registration of all venereal diseases

Old Age Pensions
was compulsory, it has resulted in the virtual elimination of syphilis. "Syphilis is as rare to-day in Sweden as is typhoid fever in the city of New York."
I did not intend to bring that up at the moment, but it was injected into the discussion and I just wanted to call attention to its importance. 'It will have to be discussed at some time and provision be made for dealing with it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Could we get back to
section 1?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are three points to which I wish to direct attention. The first is, can anything be done to provide for reciprocal benefits with respect to old age pensions? That is, to provide for our citizens continuing to receive old age pension if they go to England, and for New Zealanders, say, coming here still to receive the old age pension on the same conditions as would be granted to a Canadian who might go to New Zealand. I found that question engaging the attention of our friends in the Antipodes, and it has frequently been brought to my attention in connection with aged men and women who would like to go back to the homeland and die beside the old home. They cannot now carry with them their pension, but reciprocal arrangements might be provided. The matter has been considered, and I think there must be a considerable volume of correspondence in respect to it. I was going to ask whether it has been advanced any further than when I last knew of it.
The second point relates to the Yukon, to which reference has already been made. In the Northwest Territories seven pensions are being paid, and seven only. The Minister of Labour of that day, Mr. Heenan, thought he had accomplished a great deal when he negotiated an agreement with the government of the Northwest Territories, and it was spoken of in terms quite complimentary to the minister. Might I suggest that the position of the Yukon is somewhat stronger than that of the Northwest Territories. I think no one knows that better than the minister, because I gathered from something he said the other day that he had been giving attention to it personally and knew something of the number of people who would be affected.
The third point has to do with the administration of the act. No one who has been in the Finance department, as I was until 1932, would deny that the act has been badly administered. I wholly agree with what the minister said, and when I took steps to have the administration placed under the Minister of Finance-I had forgotten for the moment
that it had been completed before we left office-I did so because of the abuses which had arisen. I use that word deliberately and carefully. The results of the investigations that were made would amaze this house if they knew of them.


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the Minister of Finance read to this chamber some of the cases of which he has record in his department it would amaze this house, using the word "amaze" in its proper sense. For instance, one of our leading citizens happened to be in western Canada, in the branch of a bank of which he was director, and it may amaze this bouse as it certainly did me, to know that a customer of the bank came in and cashed a Canadian bond coupon at one wicket and an old age pension cheque at the other- and the amount of the coupon was not trifling. I have known of transfers of property taking place on a scale that would arouse the interest of at least one collector of revenue in this country as applied to succession duties.


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear; numbers of them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, numbers of them; and what is more, taking them in the aggregate, a large number.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was amazed to find that in one case there was a substantial deposit in the savings account of a recipient of an old age pension.
The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) has stated a fact that most of us are not quite fitted to discuss. When we get into the realm of political discussion of matters of this kind we each blame the other-it was a Liberal crowd that did it, or a Tory crowd. The fact is that efforts have been made in Canada to administer the Old Age Pensions Act for political purposes. I do not say that from hearsay but from investigations that were made. We endeavoured to check up. Every month, I think it is-and if I am wrong perhaps the minister will correct me-each province sends to the Department of Finance a list of all those who received old age pensions during the preceding month.


Charles Avery Dunning: Quarterly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We were endeavouring to have it done monthly, for reasons which I will explain, and I did not know whether or not it had been put on the monthly basis. We took that list; we appointed inspectors and checked up, and we did clear the list a
Old Age Pensions

little. But, Mr. Chairman, there was still much to do when I last dealt with the matter, and the minister says there is still much to do. The reason is that we have not sufficient control. We can say this is a fraud or that is a fraud, but when you send men to remote sections of this country to check up these things, just watch the difficulties they encounter. When I saw the reports that came back from some of the men we sent out I began to realize for the first time the magnitude of the difficulties that confronted them in endeavouring to check these reports.
I recall very vividly the discussion in this house when this statute was passed providing for an agreement for ten years, not longer. It was to be experimental, and we were to pay fifty per cent of the cost. Subsequently we increased our contribution to seventy-five per cent, because the provinces were clamouring for more revenue and larger payments. The matter got into the realm of politics, just as it did in Australia and in Germany. The first old age pension act of Bismarck became a matter of political discussion very soon after it was introduced. The questions raised were two. They were the subject of agitation in Australia, and they are beginning to be the subject of discussion here. They are, first, the reduction of the age when pension will be paid to sixty-five or sixty; and, secondly, the increase of the benefits beyond $20 per month. Those are the same problems wrestled' with in Germany, and later in Australia. As a matter of fact in Australia one government was defeated practically on that issue, though not wholly.
What did1 we do? We passed a statute that provided definitely that if one had attained a certain age, under certain other conditions which I need not take time to repeat, he or she was entitled to benefits; and unless there was compliance with those conditions, benefits were not payable. My colleague from Leeds made that abundantly clear. But human nature is human nature, and at the very beginning people began to say, Well, they are inquiring about my age, but my age is all right, and I have been quite a number of years in this country now. My hon. friend from Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) referred to a case, and I know of one somewhat similar. This man left the country and went to California, with no intention of ever returning. But the depression came along and he was practically driven out of California, so he came back and said: Oh, that was only a temporary absence and it should not count. There are many cases of that kind; I fancy there is not a member of this committee who does not know of them.

Then there is the other question, of age. It is said that the provinces are very stiff in requiring evidence of age. Well, those who have had to do with life insurance companies, and who know anything of the claims that are made on the basis of the establishment of age, will realize the ease with which people will stretch their imagination and advance or lessen their age as may be desirable. Those are facts; we have evidence of them right here in this house.
I think this committee should give the minister every possible support in the discharge of a most difficult task. If I say I know what that task is, I am but repeating what the minister himself has said. Perhaps I would not have referred to it if he had not done so, but I think we can purge these lists of a very substantial number of names. I regret to say that, but I think I know what I am speaking of when I say that the lists in some of the provinces could be reduced quite substantially. The other question, having to do with the means test, is of course one about which there may be differences of opinion.


Charles Avery Dunning: And will be forever.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Mr DUNNING:: In every province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not speaking of every one, but I was speaking of some. I wonder how many hon. members realize that fact? In the beginning, that was never intended. The provinces got the money to maintain these so-called poor houses; I do not know what they are called in the various provinces, but in England they are known as poor houses.


An hon. MEMBER:: Houses of industry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are getting the money for them. Obviously that was not the purpose originally intended, but the practice has grown up and has been extended. That is all there is to it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I know of some provinces where an old age pension system without that money would' be impossible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is the other side of it. They are able to carry on, because they do not exhaust that money in caring for the people who receive the benefits.
I had not intended to detain the committee so long, but the point I desired to make is that I am particularly anxious that the minister continue his effort in connection with reciprocal arrangements with the British dominions and the motherland, because I believe, indeed, I am sure, it would be helpful to us as well as to them.
I do once more urge upon him that the claims of the Yukon are as strong as, and in my judgment stronger than those of the Northwest Territories. I believe that with his sense of fairness, looking at the two, the minister will agree that the claims of the Yukon are the stronger.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased indeed that some provision is being made for the blind. I believe great credit is due Doctor Cotnam, the former member for Renfrew North, who so ably supported the cause of the blind on many occasions
Old Age Pensions

in the house. He should be given the credit for doing the spadework in bringing the case for the blind before the house and the people. I agree too, with the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann) that we are paying seventy-five per cent of the cost of old age pensions, and have no say in their administration.
Not long ago a change was made in administration. The county boards were discarded, and the work was handed over to municipal clerks. Hon. members must be aware that municipal clerks are never well paid. They were ordered by the Ontario legislature to do this work, for which they were to receive no remuneration. I know old people will sometimes come to these officials and take up half a day of their time filling out blanks, answering questions, and giving information as to age, and so forth. The clerks are obliged to receive these people, but are not paid for this work. I suggest that when the federal government is paying seventy-five per cent of the cost of pensions, it should have some say in the administration. In the province of Ontario I think a great injustice is done in commandeering all clerks to do this work for which they are not paid. They are helping in the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act, by filling out blanks and sending in applications.


Mr. CAMERON (Cape Breton North):: Mr. Chairman, may I say at the outset without hesitation that I believe the Old Age Pensions Act has been administered without the slightest political tendency. I believe the head of our board, Mr. Blois, who was formerly a judge of the juvenile court, is absolutely impartial and absolutely fair in the administration of the funds which come under his control.
I have an idea that the Old Age Pensions Act should be administered and supported entirely by the dominion government, and I took that position before the original bill was introduced. At that time I was provincial secretary of Nova Scotia, and when consulted by the then Minister of Labour I said on behalf of the government of Nova Scotia that we did not propose to enter into any contributory scheme on a fifty-fifty basis, because the government of that province could not afford to make the contribution. Hon. members will recall that Nova Scotia did not enter into any agreement with the dominion until 1933.
I am amused at the turn which matters sometimes take in a discussion of this kind. I have had experiences somewhat like those of

the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart). People have come to me and asked me to fill out applications. I have been told: My neighbour was a good Conservative and was getting an old age pension; why cannot I get one? I have been told plainly that I did not stand in well with the government, or otherwise the pension would go through. I had to tell this man that I did not know how the other man had secured his pension, but the probabilities were that he had not made a proper return. I told him I could not advise him to make an incorrect return, as that would not be worth doing. I said that if on a correct return he was entitled to a pension, I was quite sure the board would see that he got whatever he was entitled to under the regulations.
Something has been said about pensions being paid to the inmates of poorhouses. These pensions are of no benefit to the provincial government of Nova Scotia, as these institutions are supported by the municipalities. I had an experience with an inmate of one of these institutions. I told him I was surprised that he was looking for an old age pension, as I knew what he had received for a farm he had sold not more than a year before. He has not put in his application yet, but he is all ready to do so.
I believe the act is administered with reasonable honesty in Nova Scotia. The gentleman at the head of the department is conscientious and very capable. However, I am afraid that some of the inspectors who take applications throughout the province are not as careful in collecting data as they might be. I believe pensions are being paid in the province which should not be paid, but I suppose this is true of all provinces.


Mr. SPENCE:: Mr. Chairman, as one of the members of the committee which brought in a report in 1926 recommending to the house that old age pensions should be granted, I have taken a deep interest in this matter. As the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) has said, I do not know how we could have got through the years of depression without this act being in force.
There have been many abuses of the Old Age Pensions Act. We are not amending the act this afternoon, so anything that any of us may say will be simply for the information of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). I agree with the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann) and the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) when they suggest that everyone wanting an old age pension should appear before a county judge. I would hate to tell this house just what happens

Old Age Pensions
sometimes in order that pensions may be obtained by certain people. I know that in my own province many farmers and others signed over their property to their children just before the Old Age Pensions Act came into force in order to become eligible for a pension. I give a great deal of credit to the Hon. George S. Henry, former Premier of Ontario and Minister of Highways, for rechecking the pension lists. Many names were struck off, as it was found that many people who had lots of money to live on had been trying to impose on the public.
I do not agree entirely with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) as to red tape in granting pensions. I think what is needed is a wider interpretation of the act. The boards should cut out a lot of red tape and administer the act in a businesslike manner. They should not try to inconvenience or humiliate an applicant for a pension, but at the same time the treasury of this country should be protected to see that it is not drained dry. It seems to me that everyone is after the Minister of Finance for something.
I do not agree with the provision in the act that a man receiving a pension of $20 a month cannot earn over $100 a year. That provision should be changed. A man of seventy or seventy-five years of age should be entitled to make a few dollars to buy himself some little luxuries. I think such a man should be allowed to earn more than $100 per year before his pension is reduced.
I cannot agree with the actuary who prepared the figures for the Minister of Finance, although he is generally correct. He says that the cost this year of old age pensions in Canada is $27,500,000, and he estimates that in 1951, about thirteen years hence, the cost will be $62,000,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid I misled my hon. friend.


James Houston Spence: Oh, no, you did not. That is what you said.


Charles Avery Dunning: I may have misled the hon. member in the manner in which I used those figures. The dominion's share for the coming fiscal year will be $27,500,000. The figures which I gave and which were prepared by the actuaries, were the estimated total cost on an actuarial basis, both provincial and dominion, for old age pensions in 1941 and 1951 respectively.


James Houston Spence: I understood the minister to say that that would be our share. That makes quite a difference.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is bad enough, even at that.


James Houston Spence: I am glad that the blind are going to receive consideration, but I think the pension should start below forty years of age. A few weeks ago I met a poor, unfortunate blind chap who was peddling some articles in a fire hall in Toronto where I go sometimes. He told me that a man of twenty years of age was more in need of a pension than one of forty yeara. He was twenty-nine years old, and had become blind when he was only twenty-one. When he had to go out to try to do something for himself he found he was afraid to cross streets, to go into buildings or to do anything of that sort. He told me that a man of forty who had had some experience was better able to make a living than a man of twenty. I think this pension should be paid to men of twenty who are blind, as well as to those of forty. I think such action would please a great number of people, and it would be a godsend to the blind. I think pensions should be paid to the blind of any age.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Mr. Chairman, some reference has been made to the provision in the act whereby a man who has been absent from Canada cannot obtain a pension. I am sure the minister has had many cases of this sort brought to his attention. Could not the benefit of the doubt be given to a man who is seeking to obtain a pension and who gives evidence to the effect that although he was absent from the country he maintained a domicile in Canada? Power should be given to the minister or to those in authority in the provinces to decide these cases. I have in mind a man who is eighty-five years of age. He was one of those who took part in the Northwest rebellion. I discussed this case in the house when the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) brought in his estimates. Although this man was not wounded, he lost all he had during his absence in the army repressing that rebellion, yet he is told by the minister that he is not entitled to a pension. The minister, seconded by the leader of the opposition, told me that the applicant should have availed himself of the old age pension. He applied for an old age pension, only to be told in turn he was not entitled to it because he was absent from the country for a time during the last twenty years. He was engaged in prospecting in the Yukon territory. As a matter of fact he spent the largest part of his life in that territory, and in the course of prospecting he passed over the border and went into Alaska.

Old Age Pensions


Frederick George Sanderson: I da not want to interrupt the hon. member but if he would not mind, the committee might pass clause 1 before six o'clock, and he could then resume.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Child.
Vincent Dupuis: Shall I now proceed, Mr. Chairman?


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes.


Vincent Dupuis: This man crossed the
borders of the Yukon into Alaska, and was there engaged in the business of prospecting. Although he had his residence in a town in Alaska-Skagway, I believe

he always preserved his Canadian domicile, and after returning to the Yukon and again prospecting there for a few years, he came back to Quebec, and is now living at Marie-ville. I think his case illustrates the advisability of giving the minister jurisdiction to decide whether a man has retained his domicile in Canada although he may have been absent for one purpose or another. At any rate I should be very glad if such a decision could be arrived at. As other hon. members have told this committee, while many people abuse the law, I think the minister would be justified in giving sympathetic consideration to cases similar to the ones I have mentioned.


Mr. WEIR:: May I follow the example of others in offering a suggestion for discussion at the coming conference with the provinces concerning , old age pensions. I have in mind two cases which I think are of sufficient importance to establish principles as others may be similarly circumstanced. They have to do with the matter of desertion. In, one case, a lady, a pioneer in this country, went out to western Canada when she was very young, and got married in her later years. After she had become quite elderly her husband* left her and returned to France. 3he had no word from him for, I believe, six years. She then became destitute and tried to secure the old age pension. The department required assurance that the husband was either dead or presumed to be dead. An investigation was made and, unfortunately, the husband was discovered to be living in France, with the result that his wife is debarred from securing the old age pension in this country. If he had not been found, or could have been presumed to be dead, or had been dead, the lady would have been entitled to an old* age pension.
The other case is of a similar kind. A French Canadian woman moved out to western Canada in her early years and there

married a Swedish citizen. Before he was married he acquired Canadian citizenship, in fact, he took out a homestead in this country and farmed it for a number of years. Then, because of family quarrels or perhaps for other reasons, he left this country and returned to Sweden. It is now two and a half years since the case was brought to my attention, and we have been trying to find out the circumstances of the husband. I am told that if he has again applied for Swedish nationality his wife can revert to her Canadian status and become eligible for an old age pension; but if he has not done so, although he may remain in Sweden, she cannot qualify for a pension. Perhaps the principles which are involved in these cases could be dealt with when the minister meets with the provincial representatives to reconsider this legislation.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, I shall be glad to bear that in mind. We are now on a section which limits us specifically to discussion of the blind, and we could probably make better progress with other questions this evening on section 3, which deals with the qualifications.
Section agreed* to.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. J. D'UFFUS (Peterboro West) moved the second reading of Bill No. 58, respecting Central Finance Corporation and to change its name to Household Finance Corporation.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. DUFFUS:: The bill which I am
sponsoring known as Bill C, an act respecting Central Finance Corporation and to change its name to Household Finance Corporation, was passed by the Senate on March 9, 1937. There seems to be a widespread opinion that this is a new company, but that is at variance with the * facts inasmuch as the company has been doing business in Canada for eight years on authority of the dominion parliament.
The corporation makes two requests, one to change the name to Household Finance Corporation, and the second to have a reduction in the prevailing rates. I desire to have it distinctly understood in the first place that

Central Finance Corporation
I have no interest financial or otherwise in this corporation except in so far as it benefits the borrowers of money on the plan set out. There is a large body of people whose borrowings are not attractive to our banking institutions. The bill admirably provides for exactly that type of borrower.
I am not asking that the house pass the bill. I am simply requesting that it be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce where it may be thoroughly discussed.
The Central Finance Corporation was the first loan organization to ask for and secure government supervision, control and regulation of its business. Ft has by far the largest investment, and the most complete statistics in regard to this kind of business in the dominion. It was incorporated in 1928 by a special act of the Canadian parliament, which defines and limits its powers. I might give a typical example to show how some of our bootlegging finance corporations have been carrying on business in Canada.
I have here information with regard to one company making loans, including the sum of $200. The borrower receives $209 in cash, for which he pays $135 in charges, repayable in equal monthly payments over a period of one year. The rate charged by the lender was 124-4 per cent per annum or $10.38 a month. This is the very condition which this legislation is designed to end. Under the terms of Bill C the legal charges permitted on such a loan would have been $29.28 instead of $135. The charges indicated are not uncommon among unregulated lenders in all parts of the country, and unless this legislation is passed, permitting a rate sufficient to compensate for the expense in making these small loans, but preventing exorbitant rates of profits, the needy borrower who cannot qualify for a bank loan will have no alternative but to patronize these so-called bootlegger organizations and pay bootleg prices.
I have here a copy of the Toronto Star under date March 15, 1937, and there are twelve of these companies advertising small loans. There are only two of them under government regulation and control. I have another paper which is well known to some members of the house, the Toronto Telegram, and it carries advertisements from thirteen of these firms, only two of them being under government control.
My suggestion is that this bill be treated the same as the bill that was presented to the house last Friday evening; that is to say, that it be sent to the standing committee on banking and commerce, where it may be thoroughly discussed. To my mind the question is not whether this bill is right or wrong.
31111-110J
The point is, does the house desire to have the bill considered in committee where it may be thoroughly discussed? I for one am eager to eliminate loan companies operating without jurisdiction and imposing any excessive burden of interest. I am satisfied that this bill is at least a step in the right direction, and hence my reason for requesting that it be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
Contrary to the general opinion, all members of the house have the privilege of attending the committee and participating in its discussions, and also the right to ask questions. In other words, they have the same privileges as the members of the committee, except that they have no vote. Furthermore, Mr. Finlayson, an official of the finance department, whose duty it is to protect the general public in matters of finance and interest, is also in attendance at the committee. I therefore move that this bill be referred to the standing committee on .banking and commerce where it may receive attention without delay.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The motion for second reading will have to be disposed of first.


Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: I sincerely hope that this bill will not be dealt with in exactly the same manner as the bill which was discussed on Friday night. This bill embodies certain decidedly objectionable features, and it seems to me regrettable that the stamp of the house should be placed upon it by giving it second reading and so perpetuating what may be termed shady business practices through various obnoxious features incorporated in the bill.
I would remind the house that this problem has faced hon. members for a number of years, and it has been generally agreed that the situation reveals that the people who must apply for loans to companies of this character are those who cannot obtain credit from chartered banks. They usually obtain these small loans when facing emergent circumstances such as death or sickness, when they cannot lodge any effective protest against the extortionate terms demanded by companies of this sort. I consider it highly significant that the amending bill is now brought before parliament because of certain objections lodged by the superintendent of insurance. I gather from evidence given before committees of parliament that the superintendent objected to the procedure followed .by the company in demanding a fee of ten dollars in respect of all chattel mortgages. This particular company, I understand, specializes in a loan business in connection with which security is required under chattel mortgage.

Central Finance Corporation
Some irregularity was alleged concerning the fees they were charging, there being a maximum fee of $10 whether or not any actual disbursement had been made. I understand there is some doubt whether the annual licence may be renewed because of this alleged irregularity.
Furthermore, the explanatory notes attached to the bill are grossly misleading. They would lead one to believe that the company is voluntarily reducing the rates of interest. Opposite page 3 the note reads in part:
The maximum rate of charge provided in the bill is lower than the present maximum and constitutes a reduction in rate on the majority of loans made.
Lower down it states:
Two rates are suggested because the ordinary endorsed loan business costs less to operate than a chattel loan business.
It goes on to say:
The personal loan department of the Canadian Bank of Commerce is at present doing an endorsed loan business at an effective rate of slightly over 1 per centum per month.
We find upon examination of section 5 as it at present stands, that under its present charter, the company may charge a discount of 7 per cent. Referring to section 5 (i), the company may:
(i) lend money secured by assignment of choses-in-action, chattel mortgages or such other evidence of indebtedness as the company may require, and may charge interest thereon at the rate of not more than seven per centum per annum and may deduct such interest in advance and provide for repayment in weekly, monthly or other uniform repayments;
In addition, under subsection (ii) the company is empowered to charge:
-in addition to interest as aforesaid, for all expenses which have been necessarily and in good faith incurred by the company in making a loan authorized by the next preceding subparagraph (i), including all expenses for inquiry and investigation into character and circumstances of the borrower, his co-maker or surety, for taxes, correspondence and professional advice and for all necessary documents and papers, two per centum upon the principal sum loaned;
That means a total discount of 9 per cent, or an effective interest rate of 18 per cent per annum, or 1^ per cent per month. That, of course, is exclusive of the charge made for the chattel mortgage fee.
Under existing legislation no company is now permitted to charge more than 1^ per cent per month on the unpaid balance of loans of $500 or less. I am referring to the Loan Companies Act. The amending section provides a fixed rate of 1^ per cent:
(a) on loans made in whole or in part upon the security of co-makers, endorsers, sureties or guarantors other than one only of the follow-
(Mr. MacNeil.l
ing, the wife, husband, brother, sister or child of the borrower, at a rate not exceeding one and one-half per centum per month on the unpaid principal balance owing by the borrower.
And subsection Ob):
On loans made without security or secured in any manner permitted by this act other than the manner described in the next preceding subparagraph (a) of this section, at a rate not exceeding two and one-quarter per centum per month on the unpaid principal balances owing by the borrower.
The proposed change, instead of lowering the interest rate, will increase the charges by 50 per cent from 18 per cent to a rate of approximately 27 per cent per annum. That is, the rate will be increased by | of 1 per cent per month. Therefore I submit that the explanatory notes attached to this bill are grossly misleading, and this house should not countenance any such misrepresentation of the facts.
For many reasons this bill does not stand in the relationship of a private bill because of the discussion that has taken place during the years, and the likelihood that endorsement by second reading will be regarded as establishing vested privileges for companies of this character. I submit that such legislation should not be approved until a thorough investigation has been made of the whole problem. I suggest that such investigation might properly be conducted by a royal commission. The only evidence yet heard on this subject has been the evidence secured from the loan companies; no evidence has yet been heard from the borrowers before committee of this house. I find that assurances have been given in the past on this score. At page 3550 of Hansard of 1936 the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), discussing a similar bill, said:
It is evident, Mr. Speaker, that this matter of interest rates and the conditions applying to small loans must again engage the attention of parliament. It is the intention of the government to initiate, between now and the next session of parliament, a further examination of the matter with a view to amending the existing general legislation. In the meantime I must oppose the second reading of the bill now before the house which, to summarize, provides for effective annual rates of interest ranging from 24i per cent up to 94 per cent. I am sure that the bouse will regard such rates as excessive. It is true that in the general legislation now governing the matter the rates are expressed in terms of monthly rates, but there are various other charges, such as chattel mortgages and so forth, which operate to add to the annual interest charge or the monthly interest charge which the borrower has to pay. In connection with this bill and the one that follows, the government suggests that the house should reject them at this

Central Finance Corporation
session on the principle that we should not incorporate any more companies of this kind until the general legislation can be brought more into harmony with present day conditions, so far as the cost of money is concerned.
I submit that although this company is already incorporated and operating in the dominion, the same argument applies, particularly in view of the objections which have been raised by the superintendent of insurance regarding its operations.
The matter was thoroughly discussed in the session of 1934. I find that on that occasion the then Prime Minister, the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) said in part, referring to the practice in other countries:
As they are the subject matter of much legislation in various countries my own view is that the enactment of this amendment will protect the public in the meantime, and that we could pass at next session of parliament a money lenders' act modelled along the general principle of the British legislation.
Further he says:
Under the circumstances I desire to assure the hon. member for Macleod that it is my intention to proceed with this bill immediately the opportunity offers, and to make all companies, which heretofore have been, are being or may hereafter be incorporated, subject to it. The limitation mentioned in the bill is 2 per cent, but after reading the British Money Lenders Act, and other legislation, I may say that when the time comes we may adopt a rate of 2J per cent instead of 2 per cent.
But the assurance was given then, and subsequently, that the whole problem would be reviewed and legislation would be introduced governing the general practice. I think it was the intention of those who spoke on that occasion that such general legislation would to some extent govern companies obtaining charters under provincial legislation, such companies, it was alleged, being guilty of more serious sharp practice than has been attributed to companies such as the one now under discussion. It is interesting to note, during the discussion which took place in the session of 1934, as reported at page 4479 of Hansard, the advertising conducted on behalf of some of these companies. The then member for Macleod spoke of circular letters received headed, "Keep on the sunny side," with the text reading as follows:
Harassed by petty debts?
Are they impairing your ability to work? Clear them all this simple way.
Figure up how much you owe-then come to the Industrial Loan. We will advance you sufficient to pay them all at once. Take a year to repay us in small monthly instalments.
Do it now! Free your mind of worries and get out of debt on the convenient thrift plan. You will be surprised how easy and simple it is for any salaried man or woman to obtain a loan from $50 to $500 or more.
If you are keeping house and are able to make regular monthly repayments, you have all the security necessary for a loan. No negotiable collateral or real estate are required, the only signatures necessary are those of husband and wife.
Simplicity is the keynote of the thrift plan.
And the hon. member went on to say:
ic Then at the bottom appear the words, "Industrial Loan and Finance Corporation," and in brackets the words "under dominion government supervision." Then the circular goes on to give the name of the manager and the address of the Ottawa office. Then, in the corner, under the very pretty title of "Keep on the sunny side," I find the following:
Personal loans from $50 to $500.
1.	The only investigations made are the questions asked of you.
2.	The only signatures needed are those of husband and wife.
3.	Lowest charge in Canada on loans of this type-our rate authorized by a special act of the dominion parliament incorporating the company.
He added:
My reason for bringing this circular to the attention of the Prime Minister and the government is to suggest that in some section of the bill we should incorporate a paragraph which would limit the type of advertising these companies may carry on.
Then he says:
I certainly think some of this advertising is misleading.
I submit that a bill of this kind tends to nullify existing legislation. I refer to the Money-Lenders Aot, which forbids a rate of interest in excess of 12 per cent per annum in respect of loans of less than $500. This act has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance. As far as I can ascertain no definite attempt has been made to enforce this provision in connection with loan companies, all of which goes to show the need for a thorough investigation of the whole problem at this time.
As I have already said, the bill now before us distinguishes between two classes of loans, those secured by endorsement, and those secured by chattel mortgage. I understand that this company specializes in loans on chattel mortgages, and does very little business on loans secured by endorsements. By the explanatory note they would have us believe that the reduction to one and a half per cent in one instance, and two and a quarter per cent in the other, represents a general reduction in the gross revenue from loans, but this is of little significance when you consider that practically no business is done by this company on the basis of personal endorsements.

Central Finance Corporation
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the provisions of this bill make it liable .to grave abuses. The parent company, to which the sponsor of the bill has referred, has stated very definitely on more than one occasion in the United States that it cannot profitably make loans of less than 8200 at a lower rate than 2| per cent per month. If the fixed rate suggested in this bill is secured, no doubt the Canadian company will follow the practice that has been adopted in the United States and refuse to make loans for sums of less than $200, confining .their operations to the more profitable field of loans between $300 and $500.
Furthermore, I am reliably informed that when an applicant goes to an office of this company, having been attracted by the advertisement stating that loans may be secured ait the exceptionally low rate of per cent per month, he is persuaded by various means to take a loan on the security of a chattel mortgage rather than on a personal endorsement. In discussing matters with the applicant the official usually informs him that of course they will make the loan at li .per cent if he secures more than one endorser, say his brother and another individual, but he cannot get the advantage of that low rate without the second endorsement. Then it is explained to the applicant that under the circumstances he can obtain a loan of, say $500 if he gives a chattel mortgage, and human nature being what it is, the applicant usually accepts the loan at an interest rate of or 21 per cent. I am informed also that the chattel mortgage given as security is usually for an amount far in excess of the total loan, so if through some further mischance foreclosure should be executed, the borrower is practically ruined.
I suggest that this paves the way to grave abuses. I believe public opinion demands an investigation such as I have urged, and I understand that on more than one occasion the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has received petitions from representative groups of people urging that a royal commission be appointed to investigate the whole question.


Charles Avery Dunning: The petitions have been initiated by these very loan companies, may I say.


Charles Grant MacNeil: At least I believe such an investigation would determine how far dominion legislation might regulate the activities of these companies now operating under provincial legislation.


Charles Avery Dunning: It could' not, unfortunately.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I understand, the dominion controls interest rates. However, as this bill stands, because of the very objectionable

features to which I have referred, I suggest that it should not be given second reading until a more thorough investigation of the whole question has been made.


Mr. PAUL MARTIN (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, those who were in the house last week will recall that the discussion at that time largely concerned this and another similar bill that came from another place. It was only because of the question of time that this bill did not receive the treatment that was accorded the other, of receiving second reading before being sent to committee, where the whole matter might be thoroughly discussed. This morning in the committee a rather fruitful discussion took place. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) made what I thought was a very sensible suggestion when he pointed out the futility, until this bill reached the committee of discussing the bill which is now before the committee, and which, while not in all respects the same, nevertheless involves the principle with which this bill deals. I concurred with the hon. gentleman in that view, and the discussion was more or less suspended.
I had another reason for taking that position. Since the previous discussion in this house I have received a communication from the credit unions in the maritime provinces asking for an opportunity to present their point of view to the committee with respect to this whole matter. As I indicated last week, my interest in this question arises largely because of my belief in the real merit of the credit unions themselves. While I realize that the sphere of the credit unions is not altogether the same as that of these companies, I think the time involved considering this whole matter might .be spent wisely and with great advantage.
There is a further reason. It strikes me that a parliament such as this would be eminently unfair if it gave one bill the privilege of full consideration by a committee while denying that privilege to another similar bill. While these bills may differ in some of their details the same principle is involved, and I do not think it would be fair to discuss one bill without at the same time discussing the other. On that ground alone, Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill should be referred to the committee.
There is also a further reason. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. MacNeil) quite properly pointed to the need of an investigation into this whole question. The other night the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) gave reasons which, with his knowledge of the situation, he considered good

Central Finance Corporation
reasons for not holding that general investigation at the present time. Personally I should like to see such an inquiry held, but I must take the minister's view that this is not the time for it. Failing that, is there not more to be gained by considering this matter in committee than by merely taking the attitude that it should not be discussed at all? Giving the bill second reading does not mean that the bill is adopted. I do not know whether or not I am in favour of the bill. I see some merits in it and a good many objectionable features, but all those can be brought out in committee.
This morning the superintendent of insurance appeared before the committee and discussed the general problem of borrowing, having in mind these two bills. There is no opportunity in this house of examining the superintendent of insurance; there is no opportunity of finding out what he thinks of credit unions; there is no opportunity of finding out what he thinks would be a proper relationship between credit unions as existing in the maritime provinces and the caisse populaire in Quebec. Failing a royal commission, the very examination which the hon. member is urging should be pursued in the banking and commerce committee. If this is not done, I want to point out to the hon. member what he is doing. The situation in respect to borrowing and lending is this: Human nature being what it is, the need for credit seems necessarily always to pursue individuals.
I agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) when the other evening he took the view, having in mind this constant demand for credit and the classes of people who must look for credit, that possibly the time had come when the state should set up organizations to extend credit to people with low incomes. I agree with that suggestion, but I do not think that to-day it is possible to attain it. I do not want to criticize the government of the day. While I cannot speak for it, I do not suppose it would :be prepared to accept the suggestion. Failing that, to dismiss this bill in the summary fashion in which the hon. member would have it dismissed would be to place the whole question of borrowing and lending in the hands of people who now escape supervision and regulation.
The sponsor of the bill pointed out that in current numbers of two of the Toronto papers several companies engaged in the business of lending sums from $500 down did so in every instance but one without being subject to any
kind of regulation. Why? Because they operate in two ways, either under provincial charters, where there are no regulations, or without charters at all.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I ask a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the hon. member mean to say that companies incorporated under provincial authority operate without provincial regulation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no regulation
whatsoever. You may read their advertisements, and following that, go to their places of business and get a loan. You would find that their rates of interest vary to the extent of at least fifty per cent. I was told the other day of a transaction in my own community where the rate imposed was as high as 600 per cent.
I presume the companies concerned by this bill and the bill now before the senate have considered that it is good business to subject themselves to a measure of regulation. As a result they have taken out a dominion charter. The superintendent of insurance does in respect of these companies, and these companies alone, make certain regulations as to the rate of interest which can be imposed, the kind of advertising, and the like. What I would like the hon. member who has just spoken to realize is that it is not a question of supporting something you want; it is a question of trying to eliminate the bootlegger and the shark by recognizing something which you would prefer did not exist.


Mr. STEVENS:: The hon. member surely does not argue that that very desirable objective will be advanced one iota by the passing of this bill?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I certainly do.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I said the other night, I am interested in the problem. When I went to St. Francis Xavier university last fall for a week seeking to interest myself in the subject, I was referred to the research in the matter already mentioned by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), namely, the works undertaken and prosecuted by the Russell Sage foundation. In answer to the question of the hon. member for Kootenay East I would say those works show the following: In those states in the union where the rate was reduced to a point lower than the present, the number of loan shark

Central Finance Corporation
companies increased so much that in the state of Maryland, and I believe also in the state of New York, the legislatures increased the rates, and the actual result was a decrease in the number of illegitimate companies operating. If the ordinary man with a small income can get money from companies such as those dealt with in these bills at a rate of interest lower than he can from the scabs or sharks, that is where he is going to go.
Speaking on this question the other night the right hon. leader of the opposition said his researches into the work of the Sage foundation-and I wish to be quite fair in quoting him-resulted in showing abuses of the very kind then under discussion in the house. I have gone through at least two books issued by the Russell Sage foundation since the right hon. gentleman spoke, and I say these companies do not come within the mischiefs contemplated by the foundation.
It is not a question of our approving the present situation or saying that it is the best. People will continue to borrow. They have always borrowed, and while it may be desirable to set up an agency where they can borrow at the lowest possible rate of interest, one has to recognize not so much what is desirable but what is immediately possible. If this measure were killed a difficult situation would arise. I made the statement the other night, on the basis of information I received from the superintendent of insurance, that some 30,000 outstanding loans not now paid by borrowers would thereby be affected. I have since learned from the superintendent of insurance that during the past four years some $15,000,000 have been loaned by this particular company. Just think what that means. If we dropped this measure suddenly we would only be placing a great burden on this company, and more particularly upon the borrowers.
The real issue in my opinion is this: A bill involving in substance this same principle has been referred to a committee. I supported the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) to the effect that our committee discussion might better take place on both bills together. With him, I should like to see this bill referred to the committee, in order that the borrowers might be given the opportunity to present their point of view. I would suggest that we bring representatives here of the Russell Sage foundation, also the superintendent of insurance, and I personally would like to bring two individuals from my own constituency who have suffered from the operations of this

very kind of a company which will be protected unless we exercise some measure of regulation.
While I do not think this is a full and proper way of regulating, yet under the circumstances and having in mind the observations of the Minister of Finance I would say it is the only way left open. I ask the hon. member who has just spoken to consider seriously what the results of his suggestion if adopted would be. In any event, whether or not what I have said is correct, I believe that any company given recognition by the government of the day, no matter what its business may be, should be accorded subsequent privileges consistent with that recognition. This company and the company dealt with previously were granted charters. The company now under consideration, as I understand it, operated under arrangements which were then acceptable but which, if the information of the hon. member who has ju9t spoken is correct, are not now acceptable to the superintendent of insurance. Surely if our proud boast of democracy means anything, the individuals affected have the right to present their point of view. They have not the right to present those views in this house. I submit that the gentlemen who are prosecuting an endeavour in the maritime provinces, which I am sure hon. gentlemen will recognize as being a very desirable objective, should have an opportunity to come before the committee to state their views.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, I can see just one good thing about this bill, and that is the fact that it is sponsored by an hon. member in this corner of the chamber. We in this comer, known as the honourable rump, feel that we are just as intelligent as those who sit on the other side- and perhaps we may be a little more worthy of being trusted. The government has no fear that we are going to be contaminated. I sat in the committee this morning when another bill of a similar nature was being discussed, and I feel I am taking no risk in saying that this bill should go through the mill the same as the other. I am convinced that this house is composed of Christian members-


Mr. JACOBS:: Not all.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: It would include the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), who would take a foremost place. It is evidenced by the manner in which we open our proceedings. I am going to support the sending of this bill to the committee in order that I may have a little more time to prepare myself for hitting this bill in the way I think it

Central Finance Corporation
ought to be hit. When a man falls into a hole or a pit, even our Hebrew members would stop to pull him out even though it were on the Sabbath day. Anyone who is forced to borrow money at 24 or 30 per cent is in a hole, and any moneylender who comes along and shoves him in further should in my opinion be sent sky-high, and I am going to be one of those who will help to do that when this bill comes before the committee.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I think the
position taken by the last speaker (Mr. Mclvor) could hardly justify the second reading of this bill. He believes that the bill is essentially wrong. If that is the general belief, we cannot possibly agree to the second reading. Even the sponsor of the bill (Mr. Duffus) said it was not a question with him whether the bill was right or wrong, that we ought to let it go on to the committee in any event. I think it is the accepted rule of procedure in this house that the principle of a bill is decided on its second reading. Anyone who has been in the house for some time or who is at all familiar with the rules will recognize that fact. It is here and now that we should decide whether we are in favour of the principle of this bill. Still there are many hon. members who believe that this bill should be sent to committee without prejudice. Speaking to the bill which was before the house on Friday night, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) had this to say:
Personally I should be content if the second readings were given without prejudice to the ultimate fate of the bills, which could then be referred to the banking and commerce committee for examination and report; for as I have stated, the companies concerned are already in existence and are permitted by existing law to charge a higher rate of interest than seems to be contemplated by the bills. We might, therefore, at least examine them in committee where interested parties both for and against may be heard.
Personally I do not think that was a sound way of dealing with the bill. However, the minister made his appeal and the house agreed to the second reading of one bill and referred it to the committee. But what did we in the committee find this morning? We found that the sponsors of that bill raised every objection to having both sides of the question presented to the committee. Their attitude was to hurry the bill through the committee, that it was a separate bill which should be judged on its merits, and that we should not take time to go into the fundamental principles involved, which some of us were trying to bring before the house and
the committee. I tried to move an amendment in committee this morning that before any decision was given, the whole question should be gone into, as was suggested by the minister. But the sponsors of the bill did not want anything of that kind; they wanted to get the bill through.


Samuel William Jacobs: I did not think the rules
of the house permit us to discuss what has transpired in committee before the matter is brought back to the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the report.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think the hon. member's objection is well taken, but reference was made by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), to what went on in committee, and I thought it was only fair that I should do likewise. I do not want to pursue the matter further because I recognize that it would not be the usual practice.
The sponsor of this bill made the astonishing statement that any member of this house had' the same rights in the committee as a member of the committee itself, except possibly with regard to voting privileges. Those of us who have sat on committees for some years know that that is not the case. Members of the house are usually permitted to appear in committee, and sometimes they are given the right to participate in the discussion, but no member of the house has the same right in committee as the committee members.
The sponsor also suggested that if the bill went to the committee the superintendent of insurance would be present to safeguard the interests of the public. Since he has introduced the question, I think it is only fair to state that the superintendent of insurance, while he seemed to be in favour of the previous bill, was definitely opposed to the present bill. There is no use dragging in the superintendent at this time.
The sponsor of the bill also suggested that this was a step in the right direction. That might have been said for the bill which was before us on Friday night-in that case it was not a very long step in the right direction-but I do not think even this can be said with regard to the bill under consideration. If the bill is voted down, the company could continue to carry on its business in the old way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was under that impression but the superintendent of insurance advises to the contrary. The reasons he gave are reasons which should be discussed in committee.
Central Finance Corporation


Richard Bedford Bennett: It could carry on business provided it could get a licence at the end of the year, which the superintendent might or might not give.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is my point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is the same thing.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It can carry on business if it is obeying the law, but it is not obeying the law. Why should this company which cannot obtain a licence under present arrangements come here seeking to have its privileges extended? The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) seems to take it for granted1 that if a company has once been established' and recognized, it should go on and on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I did not say that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Perhaps the hon. member did not say it in those words, but he implied that it should be given the privilege of having its affairs examined and of being allowed to make changes. It seems to me that if a company has not been complying with the existing regulations, there exists a very good reason why those privileges should be promptly withdrawn. Whatever may be said about the previous bill I do not think it can be said that this one is a step in the right direction.
I understand something of the reasons that may be alleged for having regulated companies. Admittedly there is something to be said for having a regulated company, even though its practices are reprehensible, but it is a desperate alternative that we are asked to adopt. If the small loan business is iniquitous, if it consists essentially in the practice of usury, why should we go on iolerating it to the extent of 24 per cent, or as in this particular case, I believe, 27 per cent per annum? Is that the alternative that we should adopt? I do not think so. There are possibilities of establishing other agencies to do this kind of work. The companies take the ground that their losses are so heavy that they have to charge this very heavy rate; that the carrying on of this business involves large expenditures and for that reason they must charge high rates. I can follow their reasoning though I cannot accept their conclusions. It may be essential for a company which goes into this business and pays its officials 86,000 a year and over in salaries, even though they charge a moderate rate of interest, say five or six per cent on their investment, to impose such rates as this in order to recoup themselves for the losses they sustain. That is all very well, looking at it

from the company's standpoint. But we in this parliament should think not so much of the company's interests as of the interests of the borrower. I submit that no man can pay around two or two and a half per cent per month and remain solvent for very long.


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is that principle that we are here considering, because this bill provides for the continuance of that kind of thing. It occurs to me that the situation is very much like attempting to rescue a man who is drowning. You say, "Poor fellow, he is going down; he ought to be thrown a life preserver." But if you throw him something which is in the shape of a life preserver but which is heavier than water, you are not helping him very much; your help is simply sending him down. And if the best this house can do is to provide that private companies, regulated and all the rest of it, can charge 24 to 27 per cent interest, we are not doing very much to help out the borrowers.


James Samuel Taylor: Might I suggest that this is not 27 per cent per annum; it is two and a quarter per cent per month, which amounts to a great deal more than 27 per cent per annum.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, I suppose that is true, although these loans are for short terms, and perhaps strictly we should not speak of them as 24 or 27 per cent per annum.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the difficulty. We are supposing. We don't know. Let us consider this.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But we know it is not less than 27 per cent.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The effective rate.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The effective rate is not less than 27 per cent. I do not see why, because a somewhat similar bill was passed on Friday, we should pass another bill now on .Monday. The bill that was passed on Friday was a great deal better in principle than this one.


Mr. MacNICOL:: It only slipped through.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It slipped through by a very small majority, and it went through on the express understanding that we should have the entire situation considered in committee. Let me emphasize that once more. The position as the Minister of Finance, said was that:
We might, therefore, at least examine them in committee where interested parties both for and against may be heard.

Old Age Pensions
But there was no disposition in committee this morning to listen to interested parties against the bills. There were a few who supported that idea.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I strongly supported it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, the hon. member for Essex East supported that idea.


Charles Avery Dunning: So would I have done, had I been there.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I mentioned that the finance minister would have done it. But that was not the unanimous idea in the committee. I felt that before passing a single bill more, before giving one little bit of privilege more, we should have a full examination of the whole question.
The house is now considering another bill -each bill standing by itself-and we are back again into the question of principle. Personally I strongly urge, and I am quite prepared to call a vote on the question, that here and now this bill should be voted down. The principle involved is that of 27 per cent interest, or much more, as the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Taylor) suggests. I think it is outrageous. In spite of the wretched conditions that prevail among a great many of the poor of this country, apparently the best thing parliament can do is to allow companies of this kind to go on exploiting, as I regard it-yes, exploiting the people. The fact that they do not exploit them to the extent of 30 or 40 per cent- someone suggested that certain companies have robbed borrowers to as much as 100 per cent, or was it 600 per cent?-that I suggest is no reason why we should permit this company to exploit people up to 27 per cent. I hope the house will vote this bill down now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member has already spoken.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: If there is any chance at all that this bill will not receive complete consideration from all angles in committee, I should certainly support the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) in his view that we ought to kill it now while we have a chance at it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us try to consider it first.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with those who are opposing this bill. I believe that in passing the second reading of the bill we are adopting a principle that is absolutely vicious. I agree with the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), or rather I agreed with him last June when he said that this whole matter of loan companies should be referred-


Walter Edward Foster: It is nine o'clock. The hour for public and private bills having expired, the house will revert to the consideration of Bill No. 42, to amend the Old Age Pensions Act.



OLD AGE PENSIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 42, to amend the Old Age Pensions Act-Mr. Dunning-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 3-Pensions to the blind: conditions.
Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, section 3
(a)	of the bill, defines blindness for the purposes of the act. The definition there used is the same as is used in the Blind Persons Act of 1920 of the United Kingdom. There are many definitions of blindness, and they vary considerably-


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is political blindness.


Charles Avery Dunning: -even in the same countries. The definitions are different, depending on whether they have reference to census enumeration, education or pensions. After careful consideration the English definition has been adopted as the most satisfactory. It is recognized that this definition is general in character, and that it will be necessary to express what it means in terms which can be used and applied by medical examiners, and section 4 of the bill provides that that may be done by regulation.
It is, however, important to note that in the definition adopted the test is not whether the person is unable to pursue his ordinary occupation or any particular occupation, but whether he is too blind to perform any work for which eyesight is essential, and that only visual conditions will be taken into account, and ether bodily or mental infirmities will be disregarded. I may amplify that by saying that in discussions with those interested in the problem, from the standpoint of the blind themselves, there is practical unanimity in expressing approval of the definition of blindness used in the British act, which has been adopted in (a) of the section now before the committee. I think it would be convenient if we adopted this section by
Old Age Pensions

alphabetical subdivisions, as (a) does not relate to (b), (c) and (d). I shall have an amendment to (c) when we reach it, but for the moment I am dealing with (a), the definition of blindness.
Paragraph (a) agreed to.
On paragraph (b):


James Samuel Taylor: How does the minister arrive at forty years, if we are to assume, as he said this afternoon, that a blind man at forty is equivalent to an old man at seventy?


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not say that.


James Samuel Taylor: The minister is treating them on parallel lines.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no.


James Samuel Taylor: Will he kindly tell us what he did say?


Charles Avery Dunning: I said that this act assumes an age of seventy for a blind person of forty, which is different from what my hon. friend is saying.


James Samuel Taylor: I want to have that established so as to deal with the other clauses when we come to them.
Paragraph (b) agreed to.
On paragraph (c):


Charles Avery Dunning: I have discussed paragraph (c) with the Minister of Pensions and National Health, who points out to me that the present wording might conceivably create some difficulty in connection with statutes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Pensions and National Health. I will, therefore, ask the Minister of Labour to be good enough to move this amendment to paragraph (c). The paragraph as amended will read:
Is not in receipt of a pension in respect of blindness under the pension act or an allowance in respect of blindness under the War Veterans Allowance Act.
The reason for that amendment is obvious. It avoids disqualification by reason of allow-mces which may be made under those acts :or reasons other than blindness.


Mr. ROGERS:: I move that the amendment Which has been read be substituted for paragraph (c) as it stands.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is it under this particular
clause that the amounts of earning power which a blind person may have can be discussed?


Charles Avery Dunning: Paragraph (d) deals with that.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph (c) as amended agreed to.

On paragraph (d):
Charles Avery Dunning: Paragraph (d) allows a total income of $440 for a blind person who is unmarried, or a widower without a child or children, or a widow without a child or children, which means that the pensioner could have a permissible income of $200 over and above the maximum pension of $240 per year. In the case of a blind person who is married, or a widower or a widow with a child or children, the maximum total income is $840 a year, and the maximum permissible income is $400 a year, or just double that for an unmarried blind person. For old age pension the maximum total income is $385 and the maximum permissible income otherwise is $125, and no distinction is made between married and unmarried persons. The extra provision here contained for blind persons recognizes, by the permissible income, a more generous scale in view of the fact that the cost of living for blind persons is higher than for seeing persons, and encourages them to support themselves and their families by augmenting their pensions by earnings. This was the subject of considerable discussion with those organizations that have to do with the blind, and I believe the committee will recognize that there is naturally a certain extra expense falling upon a blind person. There is also the further factor of the training work, work peculiarly suited to blind persons which is carried on by various institutions and which does return a certain income for the blind. For these reasons it is intended to treat blind persons more generously with respect to permissible income than the old age pensioner at seventy.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not think that any
member will suggest that we are treating the blind generously when we allow such a small earning power as this bill provides. According to the minister's statement and the terms of the bill itself, a blind single person is allowed to earn not more than $200 per year. If he earns more than that, his pension allowance is reduced accordingly. In other words, he is allowed to earn approximately $4 per week. Perhaps I might put it this way. His total maximum income, the amount he will receive as a pensioner and the amount he will be allowed to earn, will be about $8.50 a week or a little over. I do not suppose any one will claim that for a single blind person $8.50 per week can by any stretch of the imagination be called a generous amount. Would not the minister consider increasing the amount that a blind person should be allowed to earn?

Old Age Pensions
It is not a question of what he may earn, as he may have an unearned income slightly more than is provided for under this bill.
The same might be said with regard to married persons. According to the provisions of this bill the maximum income would be $640 per year, including the amount of the pension. In other words, a married person would be allowed to earn $400 per year, or a total income of a little less than $12.50 per week. I do not think anyone will say that that is treating over-liberally a blind person of the age of forty-five who may have a dependent or partly dependent family. I plead with the minister to increase the amount which a blind person may earn and still be eligible for pension. One of the great hardships under the existing old age pension legislation is that the maximum amount of income allowed a person aged seventy or over is only $365 per year. As persons become older there are times when their requirements become greater on account of sickness and invalidity, and the same thing applies to some extent to the blind pensioner. Is it asking too much, or am I not in this instance voicing the opinion of all the blind people, that they should be allowed to earn more than the amount stated in this bill?


James Samuel Taylor: I wish to add my plea to that of the last speaker. It will be remembered that in the discussion on the budget resolution I read a telegram from the blind people in Vancouver, and one of their special requests was in connection with the earning allowance for blind people.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I ask the minister if the persons he consulted as representing the blind were in favour of this clause in the bill?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have naturally had representations from many quarters. One would expect those representing the parties who are to benefit from the bill to ask as much as possible; they would not be truly representing their people if they did not ask for enough. I may, however, tell my hon. friend that I have ample evidence that the blind people are very, very grateful indeed for the provision here made, as a start. More than that I shall not say at the moment.
To determine the relationship which shall exist in regard to income is not an easy matter. One has in mind, of course, the existing provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act. Whatever opinion there may be that the income permitted under that act should be increased, as was expressed this afternoon by many hon. members, the fact remains that the people of this dominion are putting up for the coming fiscal year $27,500,000 under that act. It is
anticipated that this additional provision will require $500,000 more during the coming year. I say to-day what I said on the introduction of the Old Age Pensions Act in 1928, that I believe this represents a very fair start, and entirely without prejudice to the future of the legislation.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have not the least doubt that the blind people of this country are extremely grateful for the measure now before the committee. I have had expressions to that effect from them, but I have also had communications expressing dissent from certain provisions of this bill, and while I have had no direct communication in regard to this particular clause, I know the hardship such a provision involves for those who come under the existing Old Age Pensions Act. I know how difficult it is for old people who take in the full amount allowed and then find that they have perhaps received in pension and earnings more than they are entitled to. I know this involves a good deal of work on the part of the government, and I have no doubt they have given the matter a good deal of consideration, but I am wondering whether pensions to the blind in other countries, particularly in England or Australia, are restricted by provisions of the same kind'. I have an impression that those countries are perhaps a little more generous in their allowance for earnings than this. I am pretty sure such is the case in Australia, and I do not see why we in enacting legislation of this kind cannot be just as generous in our provisions as our sister dominions.
One question that occurs to me while I am on my feet is this: Would a blind pensioner who attains the age of seventy come under the provisions of this proposed bill or under the provisions of the existing act?


Charles Avery Dunning: It would not make any difference.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It would in respect of earning capacity.


Charles Avery Dunning: As far as earning capacity is concerned he would come under this provision, because he is blind.


Harry Leader: In speaking to this bill this afternoon I mentioned what I thought were some desirable features. I am sorry I had to leave my seat and attend the committee inquiring into the prices of farm implements and therefore did not hear the discussion after four o'clock. However, I am not coming to the rescue of the government; they do not need it. I feel more like congratulating them for establishing the principle of pensions for the blind..
Old Age Pensions

I do not think my hon. friends on the other side are entirely fair when they ask for earnings to foe permitted in excess of $200 a year, in addition to the $240 pension granted under this bill. I am more concerned about those blind persons who are not going to receive this pension, and who will receive nothing at all. I should like to make it a little easier for all blind people to receive this pension. I believe those who are entitled to come under this legislation have been taken care of, perhaps not generously, but fairly well under the circumstances.
I had a letter the other day asking me to suggest to the government that provided the applicant was a British subject, and a resident of Canada for twelve years he or she should be qualified for this pension for the blind. I do not know how the minister will receive that suggestion, but I think I would prefer that to increasing the pension, as advocated by some hon. members to the left.
Then what is going to become of blind people under the age of forty? It seems to me many of -them are in a worse position than some who have reached the age of forty, and who perhaps have acquired knowledge of some trade and are able to make a living for themselves.


Mr. GOLDING:: What is happening to them now?


Harry Leader: I want to follow up my argument. I had a letter from a constituent who said he knew of a young man seventeen years of age, not only blind but deaf also, and he wanted to know if any provision could be made for such a person. Under this bill no such provision whatever is made. I suggest that the right to get a pension be made easier, instead of imposing too many restrictions, and I therefore urge that the age be made less than twenty years provided the person is a British subject. Put it at twelve years, as my correspondent suggests. Before increasing the amount of the pension, as some hon. gentlemen are asking, let us consider the blind under the age of forty.


Charles Avery Dunning: In the discussions which I had with those interested in the blind people, representing the institutions which deal with them educationally and otherwise, one of the strongest pleas put up to the government in favour of the legislation now proposed, with the age provisions now proposed, was that if provision were made by way of pension for the blind over the age of forty, the institutions now existing for the care of the blind would be able to do very much better work in the way of education, particularly along

the lines of the vocational training of those who have not yet attained the age of forty. We are assured by those interested that the passing of this legislation will liberate the hands of these organizations and give assistance where it will do the most good, because generally speaking those who have passed the age of forty cannot readily acquire the ability to do work which will produce an income, while those under forty can be educated by the organizations interested in the welfare of the blind to enable them to earn quite reasonable sums for their own support. So I would point out to my hon. friend that the age of forty is quite acceptable to those who represent the blind in this country. I do not say they would not like a lower age, but in support of the proposal they point out that if the parliament of Canada will make provision for pensions to the blind at forty, it will enable them to do a great deal more work, and more valuable work, for those under forty than they are now able to do.


Harry Leader: Perhaps I should mention that I have received communications from those in charge of institutions for the blind, and they say they are very, very grateful and quite well satisfied to have these pensions apply at forty years of age.


Charles Avery Dunning: The age in Great Britain is fifty.


Harry Leader: I know those in charge of these institutions believe that now that we have established the principle of pensions for the blind we have gone a long way in taking care of these people. But I should like to ask the minister how this will affect a case such as I mentioned, that of a young man who at the age of seventeen is not only blind but also deaf. Are there any institutions that take care of cases such as that?


Charles Avery Dunning: I would point out to my hon. friend that normally the care of people of that kind is a provincial responsibility, and the provinces have institutions for the purpose of taking care of those who are deaf. In legislation of this kind the dominion is again taking upon its shoulders a responsibility which normally belongs to the provinces, and we are contributing seventy-five per cent of the cost of attaining that objective.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a grant in aid.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a grant in aid, and I think the tendency of this parliament to deal with problems as though this parliament alone was responsible, with respect to matters which under our constitution are committed to the provinces, should be made clear. This

Old Age Pensions
is another grant in aid, and I would point out to the committee generally, not specifically to my hon. friend, that those grants in aid are creating more and more financial difficulties, not only for the dominion, but in some instances for the provinces as well. The dominion must deal with all provinces on the same basis, regardless of the ability of the individual province to meet the financial conditions laid down by the dominion. That is one of the factors, in my judgment, which require to be cleared up as between the dominion and the provinces in a constitutional sense, and it constitutes a major part of the problem which has been mentioned time and again in the house this session. Here we are definitely making a grant in aid towards meeting a provincial responsibility.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think perhaps one word might have been added by the minister, and it is this: When the report was made it was indicated clearly that this was not within the power of this parliament under section 91; that it came within the exclusive powers of the provinces, and that, as far as we were concerned, we could not validly legislate with respect to the matter except by a grant in aid. This is a grant in aid, and the conditions and provisions with respect to how it is to be administered must be worked out by the provinces and not by the dominion. Until there is a constitutional amendment that power will not be ours.


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to
commend the minister on having taken this step along a road which I am sure we will have to follow much further in future. Whether or not there is a constitutional difficulty in the way, this is a sound move, and I commend the minister for having made it.


Angus MacInnis: I wish to do two things, without taking up too much time. I wish to point out to the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) that we are not criticising the government at all. Surely we can ask that the bill be enlarged or improved without being accused of criticising the government. We ask one thing; the hon. member asks another. We are not criticising the government or being unfair to it any more than the hon. member is.
I should like to support what has been urged by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) in this connection. We are not asking that the amount of the pension be increased; we are only asking for an increase in the amount of earnings allowed before a deduction from the pension is made.
With earnings of $200 allowed in the case of an unmarried person and $400 in the case of a married person, the earning power of the blind would have to be very low before there would be any considerable increase in the amount the government would be asked to pay, even if the earnings allowed were increased considerably. We must understand that when we provide such a meagre living allowance people are continually on the border line of destitution. Consequently they cannot maintain their health; if they become ill there is no reserve, and they have no savings for an emergency. While I am quite appreciative of what the minister has been able to do, 1 wish he could see his way clear to increase the earnings allowed before any deduction is made from the pension.


Howard Charles Green: What is the total amount that may be received by a blind husband and a blind wife living together, including their income and the pension or pensions that may be payable to them?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is $640.


Howard Charles Green: There would be no second pension for the wife?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Would she get $240 also?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is on the next subsection, I think.


Howard Charles Green: Paragraph (ii) provides "as much as six hundred and forty dollars a year." Over and above that would the husband be entitled to $240 and the wife to $240 if they were both blind?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, that is the total, including both pensions. In the case of a blind person who is married, or a widow, or a widower with children, the maximum total income is $640 a year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not from the country.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no, the maximum permissible income is $400 a year, or just double that allowed for a single blind' person.


Howard Charles Green: What is the possible total income for two old age pensioners, husband and wife, who are living together? They are allowed more than that, are they not? They are allowed $240 each, and earnings up to $125 each, are they not?


Charles Avery Dunning: Earnings of $125 exclusive of the pension.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We do not deduct anything until they earn that much.
Old Age Pensions


Charles Avery Dunning: That is quite true; we do not deduct anything unless the two old persons have an income of more than $125 each in excess of the $240 each which is granted under the act. I think I have it right this time.


Howard Charles Green: Then the two old age pensioners would get more than the two blind persons? The blind persons can get a maximum of only $640, while the two old age pensioners can get a maximum of $730.


Charles Avery Dunning: It cannot work out that way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no doubt that an old age pensioner can get $365, and if they were botfy earning they would have $730.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But so far as the blind are concerned, they get only $240 each, or $480 for the two of them. But if they were earning, conceivably under the statute they might get $640 only, and not $730.


Mr. STIRLING:: If they are both destitute, the old age pensioners get $730 and the blind get $480.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, if in both cases they are destitute and there is no income, then the blind person-let me get this straight-


Richard Bedford Bennett: They all get the same.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, they all get the
same, in the case of destitution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But if they had incomes, the old age pensioners could get up to $365 a year each conceivably, if it were possible for a destitute man and his wife each to be earning $125 in addition to his or her pension. That is that. So far as the blind are concerned the limitation is less.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is $640, is it noh-the maximum?


Charles Avery Dunning: The two blind persons can get $240 a year each.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and in addition they are allowed, without deduction from the $240 each, an income of $200 each.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, quite.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is $480 in the one case, plus $400 making a total of $880 which two blind persons could receive.


Howard Charles Green: Is not the figure of $640 wrong?


Charles Avery Dunning: It should be $880.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Only in the case of two blind persons receiving pensions.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In the case of only one the $640 applies.


Charles Avery Dunning: I read the figure for one.


Howard Charles Green: Should there not be an amendment to cover that point? Otherwise it would be impossible for them to get over $640.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, it is clearly dealt with in the section, if the hon. member will read it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should like to ask a question to clear up a doubt which has arisen in my mind. " Income " is not defined in the act.


Charles Avery Dunning: Under the Old Age Pensions Act?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would it include a pension? Assuming a blind person receives a military pension, either in respect of blindness or for some other disability, and that pension reaches, we will say, $600 a year, would he get anything under this act? In other words, is a military pension payable to a blind person treated as income?


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps I had better read regulation 18 relating to income in connection with the present Old Age Pensions Act, to which the provinces have agreed.
For the purpose of determining the income of any applicant the pension authority shall take into account any of the following sources of income:
(a)	annuity, and the amount thereof;
(b)	real property at the rate of five per cent of the assessed or market value thereof, whichever be considered the more equitable standard, exclusive of encumbrances;
(c)	the amount of Canadian government annuity purchasable by the personal property of the pensioner, after making due allowance for reasonable clothing and household furniture;
(d)	salary, wages or other means of livelihood, whether in money or in kind which the pensioner may reasonably be expected to receive and
(e)	net profit or gain or gratuity from any other source.
That is the whole of the income regulation.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would a military pension be taken into consideration?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is not mentioned there. Just to clear it up, let us assume a person is receiving a pension for blindness; would that be taken into consideration?

Old Age Pensions


Charles Avery Dunning: With respect to a pension for blindness I would ask the hon. member to refer back to the amendment to paragraph (c):
Is not in receipt of a pension in respect of blindness under the pension act or an allowance in respect of blindness under the War Veterans Allowance Act.
The amendment was made for the reasons I stated.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Assuming a blind person already has under the pension act a pension, not in respect of blindness but because of some other injury, such as the loss of a leg; how would he be treated?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is taken into account in respect of old age pensions generally, and would be considered with respect to blindness.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should think it would
be, but the regulations under the act do not so specify.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I should like to be clear
in connection with an explanation made a minute ago by the minister with regard to other earnings. May I present a hypothetical case? Two blind persons are already married, each over the age of forty years. Do I understand the minister to say that each will receive an old age pension of $240, and that each will be allowed to make other earnings up to $200, in which event the combined earnings and old age pension would amount to $880?


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps if we would go
along to another subsection which bears directly on the point I could, in the meantime, be making more sure of my facts.


Mr. MASSEY:: This afternoon the hon.
member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) brought up a point which I thought was peculiarly interesting. He referred to an old blind person who desired to move from his former place of residence to his son's place in another province, and was therefore unable to obtain a pension at that point. It seems to me that if the age is reduced from seventy to forty years there will be considerably more moving about than there was before; therefore cases falling under this clause affecting the pension paid a man who has recently become a resident in a province will be more abundant and more frequently encountered. I notice that in his explanation the minister states that one must be a resident of a province for five years immediately preceding a certain date. If a man receives a pension for five or ten years and then moves to another province, does his pension continue or
does he have to reside for five years in the province to which he has moved before he receives a pension, thereby losing the pension he had received in the province from which he moved?


Charles Avery Dunning: This afternoon I indicated that one of the most difficult things in connection with old age pensions was the residence feature as between provinces. All matters connected with the problem must be the subject of agreement not only between the provinces and the dominion but among the provinces themselves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Inter se it is a question
of the provinces themselves, unfortunately.


Charles Avery Dunning: To deal with the case to which the hon. member has referred, five years residence in the place in which application is made is obligatory; there is no doubt about that. But where an individual has received a pension under the Old Age Pensions Act in one province, and subsequently has moved to another, that feature has been adjusted between the various provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the past.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; there is now no
difficulty with respect to a person who is qualified for a pension in one province, and subsequently moves to another. That degree of reciprocity, if I may call it such, we have succeeded in obtaining.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only recently.


Denton Massey: There is no break in the
pension.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry I did not
answer the leader of the opposition this afternoon with regard to reciprocity with other countries. Very little progress has been made in that regard. There has been some informal exchanges of views with those interested in Great Britain, but my right hon. friend knows as well as I the difficulties connected with this matter, not so much at the British end as in connection with our federal and provincial jurisdiction.


James Samuel Taylor: Subsection (c) requires a residential qualification of twenty years immediately preceding the application for pension. Pensions to the blind start at forty years of age, so this would mean that residence would have to commence at twenty years. In the case of an old age pension, residence from fifty to seventy years is required. This provision seems to be harsh on the blind people. The blind people have requested that the qualification as to residence should not be for more than ten years,

Old Age Pensions

and I think the point is well taken. They claim that a man can be stricken blind at any age, but. he cannot become seventy years old at any time. The situations are quite different and should be considered in that light. The application of a definite residential qualification which may be satisfactory for an old age pension, is not so satisfactory for a pension for a blind person. Would the minister consider reducing this qualification to ten years?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid I cannot undertake to give consideration to that matter in the passing of this bill. I would not care to undertake to do more than discuss the matter with the provinces. It is true that a man can be stricken with blindness at any time, but he cannot attain the age of seventy years without waiting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is only a question
of residence.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is residence in Canada, not in the province.


Charles Avery Dunning: I should like to point out something on the other side. Under our immigration laws a person would not be permitted to come to Canada if there was any danger of his becoming a public charge because of blindness. My hon. friend is asking that any person who was stricken with blindness within ten years of his coming to Canada should be qualified for a pension. I want to be clear as to what he means before undertaking to discuss the matter with the provinces. I cannot answer definitely as to what my own view would be in that regard because it would require very careful consideration.


Mr. QUELCH:: There seems to be considerable confusion with reference to paragraph (d). I should like to cite a case which was brought to my attention by the superintendent of old age pensions in Alberta. The man concerned was born in Canada in August, 1866, and has resided here ever since. In the last twenty years he has resided in the following places. From 1916 to 1925 in Fort Pitt, Saskatchewan; from 1925 to 1933 in Lloydminster, Saskatchewan, and from May 1933 to 1936 in Lloydminster, Alberta. From 1925 to 1933 he lived in Lloydminster on the Saskatchewan side of the boundary, and from May, 1933, up to the present date he has lived in Lloydminster, on the Alberta side of the boundary. This man is not eligible for an old age pension in the province of Saskatchewan because during the past five years he has not lodged 1,095 days in that province, as required by the dominion

regulation. He is not eligible for a pension in the province of Alberta because, although he has lodged in Alberta for 1,095 days during the last five years, he did not lodge in Alberta at any time prior to the commencement of the five-year period', as is required by the dominion legislation. I should like to know if there is some flaw in the Old Age Pensions Act which makes it impossible for this man to obtain a pension, and which would apply to a blind person in similar circumstances. If that is so, would it not be possible to amend the act to overcome this difficulty?


Charles Avery Dunning: I must compliment my hon. friend upon his ability to present a question so complicated that I cannot give him an immediate reply. He pays me quite a compliment in thinking that I can deal offhand with the case to which he has just referred. Perhaps it will be helpful to the hon. gentleman to know that years ago when I was premier of Saskatchewan the legislature of that province attempted to deal with the peculiar situation which exists in the town of Lloydminster. As is generally known, that town is situated on the boundary line between the provinces. There is a village of Lloydminster in Alberta on one side of the main street, and a town of Lloydminster in Saskatchewan on the other side. By arrangement between the two provinces a number of years ago legislation was passed which attempted to clear up the anomalous situation created by the then existing problems. That was prior to the passage of the old age pension legislation, which was not enacted by this parliament until 1928. My hon. friend has perhaps more time than I, and I would suggest that he look up that legislation. It is conceivable that it may provide an opportunity for him to help the individual to whom he referred. With regard to his suggestion that the act be amended, I cannot offhand suggest an amendment which would cover such a case.


Victor Quelch: This man is not getting a pension, and the provinces have been told by the federal government that he cannot get it under the regulations as now drawn. I am asking if it is not possible to amend the act to make it possible for that man to get a pension. This man has resided in Canada for seventy years and he cannot get a pension.


Charles Avery Dunning: Certainly if a man moves around from province to province with sufficient frequency, no matter if he has been a resident of Canada for twenty years, he cannot qualify for a pension under the present law. As I pointed out, that is not a matter to be decided between the dominion and the

provinces; it is something to be decided between province and province. If my hon. friend will be good enough to give me particulars in writing of the case to which he has referred, I shall investigate it. An investigation will also be made to see whether the provincial statute to which I referred might not have some bearing upon the residential qualifications of the individual in question.
Paragraph (a) agreed to.
Paragraph (e) agreed to.
Subsection 1 agreed to.
On subsection 2 of section 3-Maximum pension.


Angus MacInnis: I think this subsection should be amended. As it now stands it is absolutely inhuman. This subsection reduces the pensions paid to blind persons if they marry after this legislation comes into effect. According to the explanation on the opposite page the purpose of this subsection is to discourage the marriage of blind persons. It may be desirable for various reasons-I do not know-to discourage the marriage of blind persons, but I assume that the desire to marry is just as strong in blind persons as in those who are not blind, and that possibly marriage is more necessary, for in a great many such cases one of the factors that leads to marriage is the desire for companionship. People who are denied their sight, and who cannot have access to interests that the rest of us enjoy, should not be denied these pleasures of companionship.


Charles Avery Dunning: They are not.


Angus MacInnis: They certainly are not, but they are punished-


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Angus MacInnis: -and discriminated against if they do.


Charles Avery Dunning: No. Evidently the hon. member does not understand the section.


Angus MacInnis: I hope I am wrong. I do not understand it, and I should like very much to have the minister explain it to me.


Charles Avery Dunning: I know that the hon. member for Nanaimo is interested in this.


James Samuel Taylor: If the minister is going to explain it and point out that I am wrong in assuming that the money is the means by which we are going to prevent blind people from marrying, I shall be only too pleased to hear his explanation.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member for Nanaimo, refers, I know, to an exchange of correspondence which we had, in which I
Old Age Pensions
wrote a reply a little hastily perhaps, being rather hurt by the manner in which he referred to the lack of earnest consideration which he seemed to attribute to me in connection with this section.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) was in error in his statement that there would be discrimination with respect to blind people who married. Such is not the case. It might be urged that there is discrimination with respect to blind persons who marry blind persons, but it cannot be contended that there is such with regard to blind persons who marry sighted persons.


Angus MacInnis: That is what I meant.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not what my hon. friend said. He spoke of blind persons being denied the companionship which the rest of us get. I suggest that ordinarily the companionship of a seeing person is of very much more use to a blind person than the companionship of another blind person.


Mr MacINNIS:: I suggest -to the minister that it may be very much more difficult to get.


Charles Avery Dunning: When my hon. friend has had the acquaintance with this problem and has given to it the study that I have, he will find that the very great majority of married blind persons are married to people who can see, and it is a godsend that it should be so.
I want to leave myself in the judgment of the committee with respect to this section. I am not going to insist upon the qualification in this subsection. I place the responsibility squarely on this committee. I am going to state plainly the reason why it is proposed that when two blind persons marry, they shall receive only the pension of one.
We are extending the privileges of the old age pension to people who are over forty years of age. Some forms of blindness are congenital. Those who are interested on behalf of the blind in promoting this legislation suggest to me that it is not desirable to say to two blind people just over forty years of age, " If you two get married you can pool your pensions, blind though both of you may be."


Richard Bedford Bennett: " Or whether you live together afterwards." That is the other side of it.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the other side of it. A blind person can receive all the benefits of the act if he or she marries a sighted person after the passing of this section. Blind persons, both parties to the marriage being already blind, are not discriminated against in the slightest degree.


James Houston Spence: That is fair enough.
Old Age Pensions


Charles Avery Dunning: But the proposal in this subsection is that if two blind people who are to-day unmarried, and who are over forty years of age, get married, they will receive not two pensions but one pension. I have attempted to state the reason. Hereditary blindness is a very difficult problem. I believe I am correct in saying that there is considerable dispute among experts with regard to the transmission of blindness from one generation to the next. But it is certain that in connection with many forms of congenital blindness the marriage of two blind persons so afflicted ensures that the children will be blind. So I am advised. If we say to two blind people, a man and a woman, that if they marry they can double up their pensions, we shall be encouraging by law that kind of marriage, and those who are interested in the welfare of the blind do not, for the most part, recommend such a provision.
The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Taylor) quoted a telegram I had from the Vancouver branch of one of the main organizations dealing with the blind, protesting very much against what they call a discrimination. Reading the telegram, I wondered whether the sender of it imagined that the provision would apply to those who are already married. Such, as my hon. friend knows, is not the case. He thinks that I am trying to conduct an experiment in eugenics-that I believe is the term he used in his letter to me. Such is not the intention. I leave it entirely to the judgment! of this committee whether we should provide that two blind people who marry and. are suffering, fromi congenital blindness shall be enabled to double up their pensions.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to ask the minister a question at this point, not with reference to those who suffer blindness from a congential condition, but regarding those who have lost their eyesight accidentally, as the result say of the Halifax explosion or some other disaster. Such people would not be suffering from any hereditary trouble, but their condition would certainly have occurred through no fault of their own or of their ancestors.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course, I had to give consideration to that possibility, and my medical friends tell me that the difficulties in connection with it are practically insuperable. If one could confine the provision to accidental blindness or to certain defined types of congenital blindness, it might be different. I was lost in a sea of technical terms-


Abraham Albert Heaps: You were blinded.
'Mr. Spence.]


Charles Avery Dunning: -in endeavouring to find out from medical authority just where the division would lie. May I suggest to the hon. member and to the committee generally that we have not only to consider in connection with congenital blindness on the part of both parents the likelihood of blindness in the children, but also the very serious handicap that the children would be under in any event.


Howard Charles Green: Is not the position simply this, that if a blind man and blind woman lived together they would be entitled to get $240 each? There is nothing in this bill to prevent them getting it.


Mr. RYAN:: The blind are not like that, I might tell the hon. member, if that is his suggestion.


Howard Charles Green: Is that not quite possible?


William Michael Ryan: That is rather a nasty imputation.


Howard Charles Green: There is no imputation on the blind at all.


William Michael Ryan: It is uncharitable, anyway.


Howard Charles Green: I am asking this question because I do not think this section is satisfactory. I ask the minister if that could not be the case.


Charles Avery Dunning: I admit, of course, the possibility stated by the hon. member, but I wish he had not done so.


James Samuel Taylor: Not only the possibility, Mr. Chairman-


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member for Vancouver East has the floor.


Angus MacInnis: The minister referred to a telegram he had from an organization in Vancouver, a branch of the Canadian Federation of the Blind. I have no doubt that all the British Columbia members received a copy of that wire.


Charles Avery Dunning: I may tell the hon. member that that was the only place in all Canada from which such a communication came.


Angus MacInnis: I do not think that is to its discredit.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, of course not.


Angus MacInnis: We are a live people in Vancouver. This wire points out that although there are 650 blind persons in Vancouver, there have been up to the present only seven marriages in which both parties have been blind. It points out further that, taking the dominion as a whole, only approximately 70

such marriages have taken place up to the present time. There may be some dangers in allowing blind people to marry, as the minister has pointed out. They may propagate and have blind children. But when by law we try to prevent such things happening we are by law making possible other things that might be worse than what we are trying to prevent. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) that section three, subsection two, be amended by deleting all the words after the word "yearly" in the third line of the said subsection.


Charles Avery Dunning: Much as I dislike to do so, Mr. Chairman, I must point out that the amendment is out of order inasmuch as it increases the charge upon the crown.


Frederick George Sanderson: The amendment does not require a seconder. I must declare it out of order for the reason stated by the minister.
Mr. MaoINNIS: I cannot see that it does increase .the charge upon the crown. It might, but the minister cannot say that it would unless he can prove that marriages between blind people will take place. Consequently I submit that the amendment is not out of order. If in support of his point the minister can prove that marriages between blind persons would take place, my amendment would be out of order.


Charles Avery Dunning: A few moments ago I expressed myself as willing in this matter bo delicate, so very human, and one on which we all feel deeply, to take the sense of the committee. That, however, does not make it possible for me to encourage my hon. friend to break the rules of the house. If I find during the discussion a consensus of opinion in favour of some such action as that proposed by my hon. friend, and having undertaken to accept the sense of the committee, as a minister empowered to move such an amendment I would give consideration to doing so. The discussion so far has been confined to very few members. If I were any judge of the comments made by the committee generally, I should say that the sense of the committee was rather favourable to the section as it now stands in the bill. I am willing to listen to the discussion and, as I say, if I find a consensus of opinion along the lines indicated by my hon. friend's proposed amendment, which is out of order, I shall be pleased to deal with the matter in an orderly fashion myself. But on the basis of a snap 
Old Age Pensions
move of that sort, I cannot do so. I think we should try to treat this matter without any thought of advantage or manoeuvre or anything of that kind.


Angus MacInnis: I object to the minister using such language. If my amendment is out of order, though I claim it is not, it is not necessary for the minister to say that I am trying to get a snap decision or trying to manoeuvre. That is decidedly out of order, and should be retracted.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not want to give offence to my hon. friend or anyone else. If my words have given offence to the hon. gentleman I shall be glad to withdraw them in so far as they did, and I hope he will do me the same courtesy.


Angus MacInnis: I have always tried to be as courteous as possible not only to the minister but to all other hon. members. In moving the amendment, even if it is out of order, I was only exercising my privileges in this house.


James Samuel Taylor: Apparently the committee has in a form expressed itself on this question, but I do want to bring one point before the minister, who to my mind shows a very evident intention of recognizing the difficulties that would be established by the passing of such a section. The minister knows as well as the rest of us do that propinquity is the law which will be established in this case, and that blind people already making friends of other blind people will tend to consort and to come together, and you cannot legislate against them with money or by depriving them of money. In connection with the correspondence which the minister referred to between himself and myself, if he will permit me to do so I should like to quote one excerpt:
But in this matter we develop different points of view, and if you are attempting to introduce eugenieal considerations into legislation it should not commence with the blind.
I think that point is very definite. We should not introduce into legislation for blind people matters which are better dealt with in a proper consideration of eugenics in the interest of advancing the physical condition of the people. For that reason I should very much like to see a definite expression to the effect that this paragraph should be cut out. I sincerely hope the minister will reconsider it.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Some time ago I submitted to the minister a question as to income.

Old Age Pensions


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry to inform my hon. friend that a sheet on which I had worked it out and on which I had other notes I inadvertently threw away. I shall be glad to get the information.
Subsection 2 agreed to.
Subsections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
On the preamble:


Grote Stirling: Is the minister going to give the information asked for?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I want to say a word or two before the preamble carries. I was a member of the committee that was appointed in the last house and I also supported the member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) in this house in the projection of this legislation. I feel, therefore, that I should take this opportunity first to pay a tribute to the former member for Renfrew North, Doctor Cotnam. Although he was not a member of the committee, it was in pursuance of his resolution that the committee was appointed, and it inquired thoroughly into the whole question of pensions for the blind.
There appeared before the committee a number of witnesses who were well informed on the subject, and I think their names should be mentioned and that they should receive the compliments of the house.
I would place first Captain Baker of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. He had made a very exhaustive study of the subject, and the evidence he gave was of great importance and assisted very much in inducing the committee to support the Cotnam resolution. Then there was Mr. Layton, of the Canadian Federation for the Blind, and a number of other witnesses whose names I do not remember.
I should like also to compliment the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly), who made an excellent speech on behalf of the blind in the house last session and well deserves the thanks of the house for the part he took in bringing this great boon to the blind.
Finanlly I want to compliment the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) because the bill could not have been introduced into the house without his consent. I am very happy that the minister was able to find the necessary money, owing perhaps to the increase in revenues, to enable him to introduce this
legislation. All hon. members are for the bill, and I am sure the whole house earnestly hopes that it will result in great relief to our unfortunate blind people.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I wish to associate myself
with what has just been said, and I hope that when the bill goes on its final journey to another chamber it will receive the same sympathetic consideration as it has here. I well remember what happened to the first old age pensions bill sent to the other chamber in 1926. I hope this time there will be a different attitude towards this measure there. This is one of the few pieces of humane legislation that we have been privileged to discuss in this house, and I am more than pleased at the unanimity of the sentiments expressed regarding it. I should also like to compliment the Minister of Finance for the thorough grasp he has shown of this question, as he does of all questions.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Abraham Albert Heaps: May I point out that by the figures just given, two persons who are blind and married are in a much more favourable position than those who are single. They could each have a total income including pension of $640 each, whereas a single person could have a total income of only $440.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not know whether that is discrimination, but it does not work out fairly.
Preamble agreed, to.
Bill reported.


Walter Edward Foster: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Charles Avery Dunning: With the consent of the house I should like to move the third reading now by unanimous consent. That would enable the bill to go to the Senate and if passed there, to the various provincial legislatures which are sitting at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
REGULATION OF IMPORTATION, EXPORTATION AND SALE	'
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to control and regulate the importation, exportation, sale and other dealing with feeding stuffs by registration and inspection; the imposition of registration fees; and to authorize the Minister of Agriculture to appoint officers for the effective execution of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Mr. GARDINER:: Mr. Chairman, the
present Feeding Stuffs Act which the bill founded on this resolution is intended to replace has been in effect without amendment, except with regard to wheat by-products, since 1921. The purpose of this measure is to provide for the control of additional feed products; to require guarantees suited to the
different kinds of feed products now on the market; and to facilitate enforcement, and to consolidate and clarify the wording of the act where necessary or advisable.
It will be apparent to members of the committee that during the years since 1921 there have been a number of new feed stuffs for feeding animals placed upon the market, and it is intended to bring the act up to date. For the benefit of the committee I may say that when this bill is given second reading it is my intention to have it sent to a committee, in order that those interested may appear and make representations in connection with any changes that may be proposed. Therefore I would suggest that it might not be necessary to enter into any detailed discussion of the measure at this stage.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am very seriously concerned about our power to enact legislation founded upon such a resolution, in view of the recent decisions of the court of last resort. It will be observed that we are selecting one article of commerce, namely, feeding stuffs. It will be observed that we propose to control and regulate (a) the importation, (b) the exportation and (c) the sale, and other dealings therewith. If the judgment to which I refer has any value at all it has the effect of saying that any attempt on the part of this parliament to regulate the sale would be an invalid exercise of our powers. I am not going to use technical language; I am speaking broadly and generally at the moment.
Further, these means are to be accomplished by registration and inspection. It will be recalled that the court said that it made no difference what method was used; if the purpose sought was what is sought here, then it was not a valid exercise of power by parliament to attempt to do it. The imposition of registration fees, and the authority given the minister to appoint officers and so on, are supplementary matters.
I am not going to raise the issue in any sense beyond directing attention to it at the moment. Perhaps a bill might be introduced based on this resolution, without prejudice to any position which may be taken subsequently; then the bill might be given first reading tonight and stand for second reading as soon as convenient thereafter. In the meantime I merely direct the attention of the Minister of Justice to the matter, for what it may be worth, because these words in the form in which they are now used, having regard to the language employed by the privy council, would seem to me to indicate a contemplated
Seeds

measure that would be beyond the jurisdiction of this parliament to enact. I say that regretfully, because I should like to see this parliament have that power.


Ernest Lapointe: I think
that was the reference on which there was a unanimous decision.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, against us.


Ernest Lapointe: Quite so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact, since the minister has mentioned it, that is the one I am least able to understand. Had this arisen through a concrete case I say to the minister frankly that I think the judgment might have been different, because that measure provided that there should be cooperation. The minister will remember that in the Crystal Dairy case the privy council said British Columbia could not impose fees that, according to the privy council, amounted to the exercise of the taxing power in an indirect manner, which was beyond their jurisdiction. The marketing act, to which reference was made by the minister just now, certainly shared the fate of previous acts, but on the ground that in this instance it was the exercise by this parliament of powers that belonged to the province. As I say, I can hardly reconcile that. But without going into the matter at any length, I think ample opportunity to look into it will be afforded after the bill has been printed and second reading given, since the bill is to go to a committee, which appears to me to be a very proper course to pursue with respect to a matter of this kind.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 64. to control and regulate the sale of feeding stuffs.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



REGULATION OF TESTING, INSPECTING, SALE AND IMPORTATION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to regulate the testing, inspection, sale and importation of seeds; to provide for the appointment and definition of duties of an advisory board; the appointment of inspectors and analysts; the licensing of new varieties of seeds and the imposition of licence fees, and

to provide for penalties in consequence of violations of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee. Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I think probably the comment that was made by the leader of the opposition with regard to the last bill would apply here also. The purpose of the proposed bill is to amend and consolidate the Seeds Act, in the light of the experience gained in the administration of that act and the merchandising of seeds over a period of thirteen years. The act has been on the statute books for thirteen years. We have gathered certain experience from the administration of it, and think there should be amendments to it. It is mostly a consolidation of amendments which have been made during that period of time.
I intend to make the same suggestion with regard to this measure, that it be sent to the committee on agriculture, in order that those representing seed houses and producers of seed may appear before the committee and make their representations. I would therefore suggest that the resolution be passed and that the bill based upon it be read a first time, with the understanding that the whole matter will be open for discussion at a later stage.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, it will be observed that there is some slight difference between the two resolutions. The resolution dealing with seeds does not purport to control. That dealing with feeding stuffs does undertake to control as well as to regulate. Of course, there has been held to be a substantial difference between the use of the words control and regulate.
The word which I believe should be given special consideration in the resolution is the word "sale." I would not go to the trouble of mentioning it now, were it not for the fact that possibly the law officers of the crown may desire to look into the matter with care. I direct the attention of the house to the word " sale " because a decision of the court of last resort apparently is to the effect that sale is a matter which is regulated by the law of the province, dealing as it does with property and civil rights. It would seem to me, indeed, difficult to indicate under what branch of section 91 of our constitution this legislative power is conferred upon the parliament of Canada. Our claim that it came within property and civil rights fails, because the court has reasserted the view that we cannot consider a specific article of trade and commerce when we are dealing with a question of regulation.

Questions
With respect to sale, I have already indicated the extreme view taken by the court in recent cases. I certainly think, however, that this parliament has complete power to deal with questions of importation. Obviously that power is exercised and has been exercised every day. But the other questions which arise are not so free from doubt.
I believe the suggested method of dealing with the measure is to be commended. The bill could - be read a first time and then after it has been given second reading-which probably would have to be without prejudice to the position which might develop after the discussion in committee as to its legality -it could be referred to the appropriate committee. Do I understand it is to be referred to a special committee or the standing committee on agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: The understanding is to refer them both to the standing committee on agriculture.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I notice the resolution proposes to appoint officers. How are they appointed under the existing legislation? Is
it by the minister or by the civil service commission?


James Garfield Gardiner: Speaking offhand I
believe it is now by the minister, but I would not be certain.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not think so.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is a matter which can be discussed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It depends on the grade of the office. Some of the -day-to-day men and field men are appointed by the minister; others are appointed by the civil service commission.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 65, respecting the testing, inspection and sale of seeds.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) the house adjourned at 10.40 p.m.
Wednesday, March 17, 1937