1957-11-04

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on October 30 I tabled the correspondence with the provinces concerning the forthcoming conference. With the leave of the house I should now like to table a copy of a letter I addressed on October 31 to all the premiers on this subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister leave to table this document?


Hon. George C. Marler (St. Anloine-Wesi-mount):: May I suggest that the same practice be followed as with the other letters, and that it be printed as an appendix to Hansard?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, with the leave of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreeable that this document be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of correspondence referred to above, see appendix, page 753.)



SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 22, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transpori) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize and to provide for the construction by Canadian National Railway Company of a line of railway from Optic lake to Chisel lake in the province of Manitoba, being approximately 52
miles, at a total estimated expenditure of $8,840,000, not to be exceeded by more than 15 per cent; and also to authorize the purchase from the International Nickel Company of Canada, Limited, by the said railway company, of a line of railway from a point on the Hudson Bay Railway line at or near Sipiwesk to a point on the Bumtwood river at or near Mystery lake in the province of Manitoba, a distance of 30 miles, more or less, at a price not exceeding $5,400,000; to authorize the issue by the said railway company of securities that may be guaranteed by Her Majesty in right of Canada to finance the construction and purchase of the said lines; and, in order that the said railway company may forthwith proceed with construction and the purchase of the said lines of railway, to authorize temporary loans to the said railway company out of the consolidated revenue fund upon terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council and secured by securities of the said railway company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 11-Mr. Campbell (The Bafflefords):
For a return showing the names of (a) all persons appointed as P.F.A.A. inspectors, since September 1, 1947; (b) all former P.F.A.A. inspectors re-employed since September 1, 1947, in the constituency of The Battlefords.
Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for The Battlefords is attending the United Nations and I feel confident there is a typographical error in the date. I should like this motion to stand until I can get in touch with him. I believe I am in a position now to amend the date. It should be 1957 where 1947 appears.


Mr. Speaker:: It should be 1957 in both places? Is it the pleasure of the house to permit this amendment of the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion to stand?


Major James William Coldwell: If the house agrees to the amendment I think the motion can be moved.


Mr. Charlton:: In view of the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I would ask the hon. member if he would allow this motion to stand.
Motion stands.



CHARLOTTE COUNTY, N.B.    DISMISSAL OF BREAKWATER FOREMAN

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 12-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Public Works and any
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers
person or persons, recommending or approving the dismissal of breakwater foreman in Charlotte county, since June 10, 1957,
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 13-Mr. Henderson:
For a copy of all correspondence and other documents in the possession of the Department of Transport, regarding the dismissal of George W. Forrester, an employee of the department, for political partisanship.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 14-Mr. Nicholson:
For a return showing the names and addresses of all persons residing in the Mackenzie federal constituency employed by the Prairie Farm Assistance Act division of the Department of Agriculture: (a) January 1 to June 10, 1957; (b) June 10, 1957, to date.
Major James William Coldwell: On behalf of the hon. member for Mackenzie, I would move this motion.


John Alpheus Charlton: For the same reason I suggested earlier, perhaps the hon. member would allow this matter to stand until the minister returns.
Motion stands.



TAYLOR, MARSHALL AND COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 15-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged since June 21, 1957, between Mr. J. R. Taylor or any member of the law firm of Taylor, Marshall and Company on the one hand and the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or any official of that department on the other hand.
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: In the absence of the minister I would ask the hon. member to allow this motion to stand.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I am quite agreeable. Motion stands.



IMMIGRATION, FAR EAST  INSTRUCTIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 16-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of all directives and instructions to the staff of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration issued since June 21, 1957, regarding the admission of immigrants or visitors from Hong Kong, China, India, Pakistan and Ceylon.
John Angus MacLean: In the absence of the minister I would ask the hon. member to allow this motion to stand.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quite agreeable. Motion stands.
[Mr. Stuart (Charlotte) .1



U.K.-COMMUNIST CHINA    EXPANSION OF EXPORTS AND IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: May
I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's statement last Thursday that British recognition of the Chinese government had added little to the expansion of United Kingdom trade with China, will he examine the trade returns between those countries since the Korean war, which show a steady and significant expansion from 1951 to the end of 1956? I may say I have the official figures which I obtained from the trade commissioner's office this morning, and they show quite a significant expansion from 1952. United Kingdom exports and imports in 1952 amounted to approximately $22 million and in 1956 to approximately $65 million.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last, on the orders of the day, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) asked if I had taken cognizance of a press report of a statement made by a member of the Canadian board of marine underwriters to the effect that separate traffic lanes for upbound and down-bound traffic should be provided on the St. Lawrence river. The hon. member also asked if I would comment on the suggestion.
The report was brought to my attention, and the opinions I received from my departmental officials led me to believe the incidence of accidents on the St. Lawrence is not excessive in relation to those occurring in comparable waters in other parts of the world. I was rather interested to note, too, that the press report in question stated a relatively small percentage of the accidents were directly attributable to the width of the channel. The department is at present carrying out a dredging program which is aimed at widening the existing channel to 800 feet, generally speaking, and this program involves an expenditure of more than $3 million each year. It is proposed to complete this program and determine the traffic potentialities of this widened channel before planning additional channels.



STATEMENT AS TO WHARF IMPROVEMENTS ON SAGUENAY RIVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: On October 31 the hon. member for Charlevoix asked me whether wharf improvements on the Saguenay river are to be carried out to facilitate the proposed new ferry service to cross that river between Baie Ste. Catherine and Tadoussac. The wharf construction at Baie Ste. Catherine is already under way, and tenders have been called for the wharf improvement at Tadoussac, although no contract has as yet been let.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government given a firm commitment to the province of Manitoba that tuberculosis and mental illness will be included in the federal government's share of the cost of the public hospitalization plan? If so, when was this commitment given and in what form?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there has been no commitment, direct or indirect.



REGINA-LOADING INSTRUCTIONS TO C.N.R.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, of which I have given him notice. Is it a fact that instructions have been issued to freight officials of the Canadian National Railways in Regina to stop loading grain in 40-ton cars and that 60-ton cars only are to be used for loading grain for Vancouver?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. As soon as I received that notice I immediately got in touch with the Canadian National Railways and they contacted their western representatives. They have not had a report back and I am therefore not able to answer the hon. member right now.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO MONETARY INCENTIVE TO SHIP THROUGH EASTERN PORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry Trade and Commerce. What monetary incentive in cents per bushel is being offered to purchasers of Canadian wheat for taking delivery at eastern Canadian ports rather than at Fort Churchill and Vancouver?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I will take this question as notice and give an answer later.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON SALE TO INDIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I note an announcement made by the Prime Minister to the press on Saturday that some arrangement has been made between Canada and India with regard to the shipment of $7 million worth of Canadian wheat to India under the Colombo plan.
I have two questions to ask. First, would the Prime Minister be able to give us any further details with regard to that arrangement and what the adjustment is in connection with the Colombo plan? Second, is it now to be the policy of the Conservative party, which forms the government, to make its announcements outside the house rather than inside?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, to answer the last question first, there was an announcement made at the meeting of the Colombo plan nations on Saturday, so there was a simultaneous announcement made here. There was no question whatever of announcing a matter of policy outside the house. Because of the announcement being made there on Saturday it was necessary to make a simultaneous one here.
As far as the general plan is concerned, I will secure for the hon. gentleman full details as to what the price will be, that is what actual value is being allowed to Canada on each bushel, and I will report in a day or so as soon as I have heard from the minister without portfolio who is the Canadian representative to the Colombo plan meeting.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of recent developments in intercontinental ballistic missiles and Sputnik No. 2, and a widespread belief that Canada's program is largely out-dated and obsolete, will the government consider
702	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry referring the whole question of Canada's future defence program to a special committee of this house for study and recommendation?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the government will be pleased to give consideration to that proposal. However, that does not mean it will be accepted.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Defence. When the government is considering the suggestion made by my friend the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), will he look up the numerous resolutions moved by the Conservative party to set up a special committee of this house to inquire into defence matters?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the whole background will be gone into.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supernumerary supplementary question of the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister resolved the motion of the hidden fire that lies within his breast and decided to recommend the appointment of a committee on defence expenditure?


George Randolph Pearkes: Have I decided what? Would the hon. member please repeat his question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I said, Mr. Speaker, has the minister resolved the motion of the hidden fire that lies within his breast and decided to recommend the appointment of a committee on defence expenditure?


George Randolph Pearkes: The hidden fires in my
breast-if that was the question-are only kindled by the desire to give the best kind of defence possible for Canada.



U.S.-CANADA-INQUIRY AS TO JOINT AIR DEFENCE COMMAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I regret that I have not given him notice of it. It is with respect to the new continental air defence command of the United States and Canada of which Air Marshal Slemon has been appointed deputy commander. My question is this. Is there an agreement between the United States and Canada as to the role of the Royal Canadian Air Force units which will come under the command of the joint headquarters?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, the point of setting up the joint headquarters was to work out the role not only of the Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons but also the squadrons of the United States air force in defence of the North American continent.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Was there an
agreement?


William James Henderson: My point was this. Is there an agreement?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, there is no formal or written agreement at the present time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. I understood him to say in answering the member for Kingston (Mr. Henderson) that there is no agreement between Canada and the United States regarding the continental air defence command. May I ask him is there an order in council, or is there a minute of council, or is the only document that which he tabled the other day appointing Air Marshal Slemon?


George Randolph Pearkes: I tabled the order in council appointing Air Marshal Slemon and the joint release which was made by the secretary of defence in the United States and myself regarding the setting up of this joint integrated command. It was considered desirable that the two commanders should get together and work out the exact details of their relations before any more formal agreement should be made defining exactly the role of the two commanders in relation to the civil power, and that note is now in the course of study.



BASE METALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Koolenay Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Having regard to the latest Russian threat to western security and mounting unemployment in the mining industry, would the Prime Minister give further consideration to the proposal of the mine-mill union for establishment of a floor price by stockpiling the strategic base metals, copper, lead and zinc, thus preventing almost certain closure of one of British Columbia's oldest and largest copper producing mines?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question of stockpiling is a question for determination as between Canada and the other nations within

NATO and in particular with the United States of America. At present there is no intention to stockpile, but in the light of events as they occur no doubt further consideration will be given when and if that is necessary.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the statement of the Minister of Labour on television last evening outlining the alarming unemployment situation now prevailing in this country, is the Minister of Public Works now prepared to advise this house if Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has reached any decision to implement the recommendations contained in the brief submitted by the national retail lumbermen's association almost two months ago?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I explained to the hon. member the other day that this brief is under consideration. At the moment we are very much interested in the plan we inaugurated a few weeks ago under which we set aside $150 million for the construction of low priced homes. That plan has been going extremely well. The last report I had, which was for the week before last, indicated that nearly $120 million had been either approved for lending, or applications for loans were under consideration. As yet there has been no decision with regard to the matter submitted in the brief to which the hon. member referred.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister realize that a very small proportion of that amount of $150 million is now going to the maritime provinces?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the blame for so small a portion of this money being taken up by the Atlantic provinces rests with the builders in those provinces, or other bodies. The money is there, available, and if applications for it are not made, responsibility for that rests with the people in those provinces.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works a supplementary question in that regard. The minister intimated that $150 million had been approved for the different provinces. Can he tell us how many
Inquiries of the Ministry actual starts have been made, since this $150 million was made available, in each of the provinces?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the figures for actual starts are not available. A person applying for a loan has 90 days after the loan has been approved within which to commence building, and for that reason it is very difficult to get up to date figures with regard to starts. But I can assure the hon. member that particularly in his own province of Alberta the plan is proving very successful.


Charles Edward Johnston: Only 12 starts have been made in the province of Alberta.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: May I ask
the Minister of Public Works a supplementary question with regard to the $150 million provided for housing. Can he inform the house as to the terms of the arrangement by which the chartered banks are, I believe, acting as agents in this matter?


Howard Charles Green: I think that question should go down on the order paper. I am not in a position to answer it without notice. The terms are contained in the agreements.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Marler) referred to a press report to the effect that the Canadian Car company had started to lay off workers in its Turcotte and Dominion plants, and this lay-off was ascribed to the cancellation by the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways of orders for new equipment. The hon. member asked me if I would make inquiries as to whether there was a cancellation or whether no order was placed as anticipated.
I have spoken to both railway companies, and the Canadian Pacific advise me that no orders were placed with the Canadian Car company and then cancelled, but that they have now placed an order with that company for 300 gondolas, and in addition have ordered 200 stock cars. The Canadian National advise that they did not place an order for gondolas with the Canadian Car company.


George Carlyle Marler: May I ask a supplementary question. Am I to infer from the minister's reply that no order was placed by the Canadian National and afterwards cancelled?


George Harris Hees: That is correct. That is what I am advised by Canadian National.

Inquiries of the Ministry



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Villeneuve (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the reports that are current in my riding in regard to the Laurentides division that 35 to 40 men are to be laid oil from the Canadian National Railways on next January 1 in order to change its sections from seven miles for three employees as at present to 12 miles for four employees in the future, in spite of the numerous curves and other troubles of this railway crossing a hilly country?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. It was delivered to my office just as the house opened this afternoon, so naturally I have not had a chance to look into the specific details he has mentioned. However, I think I can answer his question in answering a question put to me by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and similar questions raised by other hon. members of this house during the past few days. I would have replied to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre several days ago but I have been waiting until he returned to the house.
The question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on October 29, as reported at page 504 of Hansard of that date, was in the following words:
-is the Minister of Transport aware of the reports that are current in Winnipeg that 34 men are to be laid off from the Canadian National shops at Transcona each month between now and June, together with eight men to be laid off each month from the Fort Rouge shops? What steps is the government taking to prevent these lay-offs?
I brought the hon. member's question to the attention of the management of the Canadian National Railways, who advise that the principle must be recognized that the normal environment of the railway industry is such that the level of its working force must rise and fall under the influence of many factors. For example, in the early spring and through the period of good weather work is carried out on roadbeds, bridges, ballasting, tie renewals, re-lay of rail, construction of spurs, sidings, new branch lines, signalling facilities, buildings, and so on. In the winter months, of course, most of these activities practically come to a standstill, but there are then certain labour needs 
which arise out of winter operations in the form of snow and ice clearance, flooding, and the general hazards of difficult weather conditions.
The railway must adjust also the fluctuating demands for its services in the transport of goods and people, and it is obvious that as traffic declines there will be adjustments in railway needs for employees involved. The Canadian National traffic, in common with all other railroads on this continent, is suffering a sharp decline. Canadian National Railways traffic volume is currently running at a rate 15 per cent below that of last year. When traffic declines there is a lessened demand for output of repairs to locomotives and car equipment.
The impact of technological development has a very definite effect upon employee requirements. This will be apparent in the current dieselization program, but it should be realized that it spreads into other forms of mechanization which affect the categories of employees required by the railway. In this connection the Canadian National has done its utmost to deal with necessary adjustments in a considerate manner. It is not a question only of the actual numerical demand for employees but also the fact that a need for new types of skills and experience arises while other types are no longer required. Canadian National has taken very active steps to provide training and to give opportunities to employees to acquire the skills they need to meet these new requirements.
In the face of the present traffic situation, certain adjustments are necessary. While the present forecasts show a sharp decline and thus reduce immediate work requirements, the trends are being kept under close survey so that as soon as an improvement becomes apparent steps can be taken to keep work output to the needs of traffic.
I should say also that management, sensitive to hardships caused by reductions in staff, is not being guided solely by strict economic considerations, and is making every effort to program the work so that the impact of the serious traffic decline on employee levels may be cushioned as much as possible, and every effort is being made to find alternative employment for those who may be affected. The general level of employees in the first eight months of this year for the Canadian National Railway system is down by less than 1 per cent as compared with the same period last year.

[Later:}



INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, EDMONTON-DISPUTE BETWEEN TRUCKERS' UNION AND CONTRACTOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. H. S. Thompson (Edmonfon-Siraih-cona):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, notice of which was given just a short time ago. I believe it might be more properly directed to the Minister of Public Works, but due to the fact the Minister of Transport had the privilege of being the main attraction at the opening ceremonies with regard to the construction of the airport in Edmonton I felt I should like to direct my question to him. Has the minister received a submission from the truck owners' union in Edmonton charging unfair practices by the contracting firm engaged in construction of the international airport near Edmonton? If so, does the minister intend to take immediate steps to investigate and solve amicably any misunderstanding between the union and the contractor?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. He is quite correct that it was delivered to my office just as the house opened. The answer is that representations were received by my department, and the district director of air services at Edmonton was asked to get in touch with the union. I understand that the district director has been and still is in consultation with the union, and every endeavour will be made to do all the department can in the light of the conditions of the contract.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister any further information on the pipeline construction contracts east of the lakehead, especially in view of the week end public statement by the Canadian construction leader which complained about the ignoring of Canadian companies-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows he should be asking for information, not giving it. If he undertakes to add statements of that kind to his question he can expect it to be ruled out of order. If the hon. member would like to ask the first part of his question again he may do so.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Douglas Mason Fisher: Thank you. I would like to ask the minister whether he has any more information on the pipeline construction contracts east of the lakehead.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite clear what the hon. member is asking for. If he would express himself more specifically perhaps I could help him.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Have the contracts been
awarded yet? Have any of them gone to Canadian companies?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of that question and give the answer in due course.



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES    INQUIRY AS TO EXPLOSION IN SASKATCHEWAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis Lewry (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister assure the house that the board of transport will make an immediate inspection and report on the latest huge explosion on the Trans-Canada pipe line in the vicinity of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan; and can he advise what steps are being taken to make sure that the number of such disastrous explosions will be kept to a minimum?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I will draw this question to the attention of the chairman of the board of transport.



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES    REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON EXPLOSIONS IN MANITOBA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Harrington Lewry: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister report on any results of investigations by the board of transport commissioners into Trans-Canada pipe line explosions in the province of Manitoba, as he said on October 21 would be made to the house?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I took up this matter with the board of transport commissioners with a view to ascertaining whether or not there was anything that could be done by investigation prior to the actual laying of the pipe, and as yet I have not had any information. However, I will make inquiries at once and let the hon. gentleman know, possibly the day after tomorrow.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask that at the same time the Prime Minister inquire into the reported explosion near Mortlach, Saskatchewan, which apparently was of a much more serious character than the ones in Manitoba?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I shall do that. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the previous word we had was that no investigation in advance could possibly show latent defects which would permit of explosions such as took place at Mortlach and elsewhere.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I wonder if the minister is now in a position to answer the question I asked the other day. He said he would give an answer today.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the house when the question was asked and my colleague and desk-mate brought the matter to my attention. The question asked by the hon. member for Bow River, as reported at page 652 of Hansard of November 1, is as follows:
Does the minister intend to revise the park act in order to rescind some of the impractical regulations in that act, and does he intend to review the unfair water and sewer rates levied by the department in Banff in order to give fairer treatment to the people of that town?
I wonder if the hon. member for Bow River could give me more details as to the regulations he has in mind, and tell me particularly what water and sewer rates are unfair so I will know what to inquire into?



NOVA SCOTIA-NEW BRUNSWICK    REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON LOCATION AND COST-SHARING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is it true that the government has reached a decision on the location of new power plants in the maritime provinces and has worked out a cost-sharing arrangement with the provinces on this matter? Would the minister consider making a statement to the house on these two points?
(Mr. Diefenbaker.]


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I would like nothing better than to make a statement at this time, but as I said in answer to a previous question of this sort we are very busy working out some of the final arrangements in connection with this matter and I expect an announcement will be made very shortly in answer to the question of the hon. member.



NOVA SCOTIA-NEW BRUNSWICK    REQUEST FOR COPY OF REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. As the premier of Nova Scotia saw fit to announce on Friday last that an extension to the Trenton plant had been approved and that a 50,000 kilowatt plant at Saint John, New Brunswick, had also been approved, and as this must be part of the recommendations of the Montreal Engineering report-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: -is the minister now prepared to make this report available to the house?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the premier of New Brunswick made no such statement.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I said the premier of Nova Scotia. The statement was made in Halifax on Friday last.


Mr. Nowlan:: It was not. That is absolutely false.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Keep your temper. Nobody wants it.


George Clyde Nowlan: All right; keep your own.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a question. Does the government's policy of assistance in the development of power apply to the province of Newfoundland and, if so, have there been any discussions of any kind with the government of that province?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the government's policy in connection with the maritimes, as far as we are dealing with the matter this session, was announced in the speech from the throne, and that is

what we are carrying out at present. To my knowledge there has been no discussion with the premier or government of Newfoundland at this stage.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words Newfoundland is forgotten.


An hon. Member:: It was when you were in the government.



UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Georges Villeneuve: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. What provinces have signed agreements with the federal government relative to the Unemployment Assistance Act and has the government of the province of Quebec sounded out the federal government with a view to such an agreement?


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I should like to thank
the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. I would point out that British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland have signed agreements. There has been no correspondence or discussion with the province of Quebec since this government took office.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I intended to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, but in his absence I wonder if the parliamentary assistant would take the question as notice? Will the minister seek the advice of his law officers and inform the house as to whether British Columbia has a right, under subsection 2 of section 91 of the British North America Act, to impose a special tax on mineral resources, the declared effect of which is to discourage the export of iron ore from that province?
(Translation) :



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer the following question which was put to me 96698-45i
Inquiries of the Ministry last Friday by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais).
Does the hon. minister intend to recommend to the house that the necessary steps be taken to modify the basis of subsidies granted to the different municipalities in this country which request the assistance of his department for the construction of airports?
May I ask him, as a supplementary question, whether his department has taken a decision concerning the contribution to be made to the airport of Charlevoix, in the province of Quebec?
I may say that the general policy concerning subsidies granted for the construction of airports is now under study. In reply to the second part of the question, I should like to point out that it is proposed to seek approval for the inclusion, in next year's estimates, of an additional subsidy to help construction works at La Malbaie airport.
(Text):



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: On Thursday last the hon. member for Kent (N.B.) asked me what progress was being made by the C.B.C. in providing television coverage in the French language in the maritimes. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises me that under present policies, if private stations wishing to carry French language programs to areas in the maritime provinces were licensed, the C.B.C. would provide French language national network service to them, but no such stations have yet been established.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: On October 25, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George asked me a question with respect to a recent decision of the income tax appeal board involving community of property in the province of Quebec. I am advised that the law officers of the Department of National Revenue have been in consultation with the officers of the Department of Justice, and as a result of such consultation an appeal from that decision is now being taken.

Disabled Persons Act ,	DISABLED PERSONS ACT



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ALLOWANCE AND ALLOWABLE INCOME

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, November 1, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Monteith-Mr. Cour-temanche in the chair:
That* it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Disabled Persons Act to increase to fifty-five dollars per month the maximum amount of allowance in respect of which payments may be made to the provinces under the provisions of that act, to provide, subject to regulations, for payments in respect of certain additional persons Who are patients in institutions, and to increase the total amount of allowable income, inclusive of allowance, by one hundred and twenty dollars a year in the case of an unmarried person and two hundred and forty dollars a year in the case of a married person.
Mr. Shaw:: When the hour of five o'clock arrived on Friday and Your Honour asked if the resolution carried, I suggested that I had one or two observations to make and therefore did not desire it to carry at that time. Let me emphasize that my action did not in any sense result from a desire to hold up action with respect to the resolution.
The resolution itself, Mr. Chairman, makes provision for three things. It goes without saying that since a good many of us in this house have pressed for these very things over the years, we do intend to support them. Ever since the Disabled Persons Act became law of course we tried to impress upon the previous government that the allowance provided was inadequate, particularly in the light of the constant increase in the cost of living. The provision of $55 a month now brings the allowance in line with the allowance under the Old Age Security Act, the Old Age Assistance Act and the proposed change in the Blind Persons Act. This is as it should be, even though I would once more emphasize that we feel that the sum of $55 could be increased still further.
We are pleased, Mr. Chairman, to find that certain disabled persons previously precluded from benefits under this act are now to enjoy certain of these benefits. I make specific reference, of course, to disabled persons who are inmates of infirmaries, homes for the aged, as well as inmates of institutions for the care of incurables. It could never be understood why those persons should have been more or less singled out and why they should have had a complete ban placed upon them so far as this act is concerned. We are therefore very pleased to find that the government has at least gone this far.
In making a statement to the house the other day the minister did refer to the inmates of two other types of institutions, those in tuberculosis sanatoria and in mental

institutions. I do not intend to debate these two specific subjects at this time. The minister did say that if help is to be given to the provinces then probably it should be done in another way. All I am going to say at this time is that I hope the federal government is giving serious consideration to granting further assistance to the provinces to enable them to meet these great burdens which they have to meet, namely that of providing adequate care and treatment for the inmates of mental institutions and tuberculosis sanatoria.
This measure also provides that the ceiling on allowable income, including pensions, shall be raised as was the case with the other pieces of legislation to which we have given consideration up to this point. Those things I have mentioned as being the changes in this proposed legislation are good. I have no hesitation in saying that. However, I am still troubled about one or two other things. Before going directly to those things may I just refer for a moment to one or two things stated by the former minister of national health and welfare when speaking on Friday.
The hon. member for Essex East referred to the election of 1953 and he said something like this. He said there had been no real public discussion of disabled persons pensions during that election, and in fact he left the impression that actually, even after the election of 1953, little thought or consideration was being given by the public to this question of our disabled citizens. Of course, the former minister is sometimes given to, shall I say in all kindness, modest exaggeration. This was at least modest exaggeration, because both inside and outside of this house prior to 1953 this subject was being keenly and actively debated.
I think that fact arose in part from two things. The Ontario government was the first provincial government in Canada to introduce legislation according certain benefits to our disabled citizens. Alberta followed reasonably closely on the heels of Ontario. Until 1953 I believe those were the only two provinces in Canada with legislation that provided benefits to our disabled citizens. I do not know, of course, as to the fact but I rather fancy it would be quite fair to say that when the legislation came down here, it came down substantially as a consequence of public pressure and-this is point No. 2-the realization that Conservative Ontario and Social Credit Alberta were maybe getting too much credit from the citizens of this country and maybe it was necessary to do something about that matter. But regardless of the cause, we were happy to see that legislation brought into the House of Commons.
On Friday the former minister of national health and welfare said those restrictive

regulations respecting eligibility for disabled pensions resulted from insistence on the part of at least one province that they be left as rigid as they turned out to be. He said "the province" and I can only take it, of course, that he meant Ontario. In my own province of Alberta this is what we discovered when the federal legislation became operative. It had the effect of excluding 50 per cent of those in the province of Alberta who had been qualifying for disabled persons pensions under our provincial legislation.
The consequence of that rigid test of eligibility is this. My province of Alberta has been forced to carry two disabled persons acts, let us say, on its shoulders. They are partners under the federal act and they pay their full share of the cost. In addition they are maintaining the act which they had prior to the passage in this house of the disabled persons legislation. Under it they are not only carrying those who qualified prior to the date of this legislation, but they are maintaining it as an instrument under which many of our citizens in Alberta who cannot qualify under the federal act will not be barred from pensions resulting from disability.
I think serious consideration should be given right now to modifying the regulations, or at the least the interpretation of the regulations, under which we ascertain whether or not a person is disabled. I have seen some rather tragic cases. One of the most tragic I have witnessed is this. Here is a person who, on the basis of the best possible medical advice, is totally disabled at the present moment and may be so disabled for three or four years. Under a strict interpretation of the regulations-and they are being interpreted in this way by many provinces-such persons are not permitted to qualify for disabled pensions because they cannot meet the requirements of the word "permanent". In the case to which I refer, which was nothing but illustrative, there was reason to believe that person might become fit again in a matter of three or four years. But during that period when persons could not qualify for benefits, because of their inability to work and because of the extremely heavy costs which were involved they found themselves completely crippled financially.
I proceed now to point No. 2. I ran into a case like this only within the last six weeks. Here is a case where I presume most doctors would say to themselves "hopeless". However, the patient may live for a matter of two or three years. The doctors do not like to admit that it is hopeless-and I do not blame them and I am not criticizing them for that-and they do not care to fill out a medical statement that the patient's condition is permanent because of the disastrous effect that might have upon the patient. I
Disabled Persons Act
refer specifically to certain cancer cases. I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare might give some rather serious consideration to that particular aspect of this matter.
I looked through Hansard covering the sittings of last year, and I found that in answer to questions the former minister repeatedly asserted that a new definition, if we may put it that way, had been placed before the provinces. However, I could not find in Hansard any reference-at least by the time the House of Commons was dissolved last spring-which would lead me to believe that the ten provinces had signified agreement.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I dealt with that matter in my comments on Friday.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I shall come to that matter. What I say is that upon examination of Hansard for last session I could not find anything to indicate that the ten provinces had signified agreement. However, I noted that the former minister, the hon. member for Essex East, on Friday, as reported at page 685 of Hansard, stated as follows:
I understand that the definition of disability as liberalized, as modified in the spring, has now been accepted by all of the provinces and possibly when we reach discussion of the bill the minister will give us further particulars on that score.
I hope that all the provinces have agreed upon a more liberalized definition. I also trust that when the bill is before the house for consideration the minister will indicate our current position with respect to that matter. I know, of course, that it would not be possible for the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare probably to hit upon an interpretation, let us say, of that eligibility section and impose it upon the provinces. I realize full well that they have a right to a say, inasmuch as they pay part of the cost, and that certainly agreement should be reached among them before it is done. However, I make this suggestion, and in saying this I am talking to the provinces as much as to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I hope they have finally reached the stage where they are prepared to eliminate, once and for all, the unfairness which exists under that particular section or aspect of our disability pensions act.
I listened on Friday while the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) was speaking. I have no criticism to offer with regard to what he said. In fact my eyes popped open and so did my ears when he referred to the fact that certain persons in his province who are presently in receipt of pensions had started to work or had tried to go to work and the pension was discontinued. Then, of course, when they found they could not carry on they tried to get the pension back. Well, there are some provinces in this country

Disabled Persons Act
where if the applicant or pensioner shows any sign whatsoever of being able to work, then his pension is discontinued, even though he may never endeavour to go out to work. In Manitoba the interpretation of the eligibility section is probably much less severe than in certain other parts of the country because, as I say, I know full well that persons like that could not even qualify in certain sections of the country.
I do not desire to take up any more of the time of the house now, although I feel very keenly about the matters I have raised, and particularly as I emphasized previously about this definition of disablement. I trust we may have a correction there before too long.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, most of the comments which I intended to make were covered by the hon. member for Selkirk on Friday last, and I do not wish to delay this house by repeating what he said at that time. The cost of this legislation is borne partly by the federal government and partly by the provincial government and it is our duty, as members of this parliament, to do everything in our powers to see that every one, as far as we can manage it, is treated in the same way and with the same degree of fairness. I therefore wish to support the pleas of all hon. members of this house who have asked for a relaxing of the regulations and for more uniformity in the administration of this legislation.
The hon. member for Selkirk put his finger on one of the weak points of this legislation when he pointed out that although this law is enacted by the federal parliament it is administered by the provincial governments. The same thing applies, of course, to some of the other social welfare legislation. I do not think any law has raised hopes higher and dashed them lower than the bill relating to the resolution now under consideration. The main act is called the Disabled Persons Act. Its very title raises the hopes of thousands of disabled people who will never be able to benefit under this act as it is now administered.
What is a disabled person? I think the ordinary person regards himself as disabled when his physical condition prevents him from earning a living or having any earning power whatsoever. However, according to the regulations under this bill a person can hardly qualify if he is able to move. I have many constituents in my riding who in my opinion should be able to benefit from this legislation, but their applications have never been successful. I have seen patients with very serious heart conditions who have been given the very best medical advice that they are not able to work and should not try to work, but their applications have been unsuccess-
ful. I know of persons who are suffering from paralytic strokes. Some of them cannot dress themselves or even feed themselves without assistance, yet these people are unable to qualify under this act as it is now administered in my province. The same applies to people suffering from hypertension, severe blood pressure and other ailments. The definition of disability seems to include a concept of totality and permanence. A person has to be totally disabled and he has to be permanently disabled before he can qualify.
Now, how can we tell whether a person is going to be permanently disabled? The fact that he is deprived of his earning power for a year is enough to put him in a very embarrassing situation even if he does manage to exist on charity for several more years.
The eligibility of an applicant, as I understand it, is decided by a board who have no personal knowledge whatsoever of the patient, yet in some cases the recommendation of the family doctor or the visiting doctor is disregarded. I think we must endeavour to overcome these difficulties to make sure that no matter in what part of Canada a person lives he should come under exactly the same regulations and definitions. The same machinery should be employed to ensure that the same interpretation of the regulations will be applied to each case.
I was interested in the figures which the minister quoted on Friday as to the increased number of people per year who might qualify under this act. I think he mentioned that the expected increase would be around
7,000	persons annually. I find it difficult to understand why the increase would be constant when the population is always expanding. I would expect that if the increase in the first year were 7,000, in the next year it might be 7,200 and in the following year 7,500 and so on in some form of arithmetical progression. I rather suspect that this constant figure arises from the fact that this bill is administered by the provinces and is therefore in some way related to the provincial budget. The province can only afford to budget a certain amount for the benefits of this act; consequently they tend every year to restrict the provincial beneficiaries to their budget allotment.
I would like the minister when he replies to give any information he may have on this matter. The minister stated on Friday that he has not yet had any time to examine the regulations in order to determine whether they need any modification to bring them in line with what is fair and equitable. I urge him now to try in every possible way to bring about as quickly as possible a conference on this matter between the provincial departments with a view to taking whatever steps

are necessary to relax these regulations, which restrict the benefits of the bill to such a small number of people that it almost defeats the purpose and intention of the legislation itself.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I cannot add a great deal to what has already been said on certain aspects of the resolution before us, but I do want to add my word to the views which have been expressed in this debate. I can remember that when this matter was first introduced, and again when it was brought up last year, I told the then minister of national health and welfare that the regulations were such that it was very difficult to bring a disabled person within the scope of the act. That situation has not changed. Whether under the Liberals or under the Conservatives the act still remains in such a form that it is most difficult to find a complete definition and interpretation of a disabled person.
As far as I am concerned, in my own riding and in my own province I have found it impossible to bring a person under the provisions of this act unless he is completely immobile. It has been my experience that if a person has the power to dress himself or crawl to the toilet he is not considered as disabled under this act. That has been my experience in my own riding and in all cases which have been brought to my attention in British Columbia.
Before I came down to attend this house I learned of a man living two blocks from my own home who had suffered a back injury with the result that he could not stand. He had also lost a leg, and that I know as a fact because he was in hospital two years ago, at the same time I was. As I say, he cannot stand because of his back injury, and he has lost a leg. He can move-into a wheelchair-but under the act-and this I know because I took the matter up personally-he is not eligible to benefit from this pension scheme because he is able to move.
Every day he has to go out to try and sell artificial flowers and leather goods in order to live. I say again, as I said last year and the year before, that something is definitely wrong with the regulations at present laid down defining whether or not a man is eligible as a disabled person. I have heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare speaking in the last few weeks about the regulations being a matter for both the federal and provincial authorities. The administration is a provincial responsibility, it is true, but the regulations are decided upon jointly by both the provincial and the federal authorities. The federal government pays the greater part of the cost of these
Disabled Persons Act
benefits, and I believe, therefore, the federal government has the right to say something about the interpretation which should be placed on the regulations and the spirit in which they should be applied. I know I am repeating myself, but I say, that the interpretation and the administration of the regulations regarding disabled persons pensions combine to form one of the most dirty and vicious things in the administration of Canada. That is according to my own knowledge of what occurs in British Columbia.
Unfortunately to a great extent this is because of the medical board, which has a great deal of authority in making recommendations and whose members are apparently more interested in drawing money than they are in discovering and investigating the situation of persons applying for relief under the act. That is my impression as far as I know the situation in British Columbia. Surely, Mr. Chairman, the spirit and intent of the Disabled Persons Act is not that a man has to be completely crippled and unable to move before he can receive any benefit? Surely the intention is that if a man can do something for himself-if he cannot earn a living but is going to try, nevertheless-he should be entitled to receive assistance? But that is not the attitude as I have known it so far.
Thus while supporting the increase being made in the allowance I should like to ask the minister, not that he pass the buck to the provincial authorities who have the responsibility of administration but that he should recognize that it is by a joint arrangement between the provincial and the federal authorities that these regulations and interpretations are decided upon. I ask him to consider that there may be a more humanitarian approach to this subject of disabled persons than the one prevailling now, and I ask also that he should authorize a review of the cases which have been raised during the past year. I am convinced, by reference to those cases that I know, that a great many applicants have been refused the benefit which it was intended by this parliament, one year and two years ago, that they should receive. They have been denied that right because of the present interpretation which decides whether or not a person is disabled. Surely there are other definitions of a disabled person than one based on his ability to move. A person who is crippled but who tries to help himself should also be capable of coming within this category.
I ask the minister to bear this in mind and, if he wishes, I will be glad to give him particulars of a number of cases.

Disabled Persons Act (Translation):


Mr. Poulin:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words in support of the resolution now being considered, which will mean a welcome improvement in the allowances paid to disabled persons. I sincerely congratulate the government for submitting a resolution such as this, just as I commended the former government and, especially the hon. minister of national health and welfare at that time for introducing such excellent legislation with regard to the disabled.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you.


Raoul Poulin: I have not, like the hon. members of the larger groups in this house, the advantage to have gone from one side to the other, following the last elections on June 10 of this year. On the other hand, it may therefore be easier for me to keep the position I took in the past on various projects submitted to this house including the Disabled Persons Act which the present resolution seeks to amend in a commendable way. I believe it is fair to raise the amount of the disabled persons allowance by $9 a month, and better still, perhaps to raise the income ceiling for eligibility, because this will increase the number of beneficiaries.
However, I deplore that the age limit has not been reduced from 18 to 16 years. I made a request to this effect on two or three occasions in the past, and I repeat it to-day, in order to point out more particularly the serious drawback which does not allow any indigent disabled person to receive an allowance between the ages of 16 when he ceases to receive the family allowance, and 18, when he begins to receive the assistance to the disabled.
This is a condition which should be corrected. Indeed, how are disabled persons deprived of income going to live between the ages of 16 and 18 if they are from poor families accustomed to receiving at least the small monthly amount of $8 for their upkeep and who suddenly will receive no assistance whatsoever, at a time when the cost of their care is substantially increasing?
I want also to point out, without taking up too much time-as I have done in preceding years-that in certain cases of serious illness or disability at birth or in the months or years just following birth, the disability pension should apply from that date. In a certain number of instances-and this is

according to my humble medical experience -the financial assistance which such benefit would give might enable parents to have medical care for their children, who would become normal beings, or, at least be able to look after their own needs in later life.
What considerable advantage this would be from the purely humanitarian and social point of view, with which the financial angle can never compete.
Finally, in my humble opinion, this resolution should have announced a new rewording of the definition of disability. It is all very well and good to say that all the provinces were in agreement with the federal government in this connection. I know, however, and all the hon. members probably know also, that there are still, at least in the constituency of Beauce, which is of particular interest to me, many poor people who are unable to earn their living or that of their family, due to illness or disability and who cannot get such pension.
I can only repeat here what I have already explained more fully-and these will be my closing remarks-that the physical or mental possibility or impossibility of earning one's living, in the case of poor people, should be the yardstick for the granting of a pension. (Text):


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two comments I should like to make at this time. I note in the resolution that apart from the increase in the amount of money available the objections to the act which were expressed in previous years have not been met. I refer specifically to the matter brought to the attention of the minister by several hon. members who have spoken on the resolution, that is the restrictive regulations governing eligibility under the act. I would have hoped the government would have seen fit at this time to make the necessary changes. We had every right to expect changes would be made because when the minister and his colleagues were sitting in opposition they had some extremely uncomplimentary things to say about the act.
One of my good friends who sat very close to me on this side of the house during the last parliament summed it up very neatly on January 16, 1956 when he spoke on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. At that time the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska expressed his attitude toward the

Disabled Persons Act, as reported at page 174 of Hansard of that date, in these words:
[DOT]-entitlement is realized only to the totally and permanently disabled. In other words, you have to be unconscious to get it, unconscious to keep it, and unless you walk about toting a coffin under your arm, you cannot draw that pension.
That is what a prominent Conservative had to say about this legislation just a little over a year ago and equally caustic comments were made by other hon. members of that party when they sat in opposition. The hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska went on to say:
If that pension plan is supposed to help the disabled, should not the government recognize that the pension should be paid to anyone unable through illness to earn a living at his ordinary trade or occupation? You may say that, to a certain extent, it comes under provincial jurisdiction but every government and every Canadian knows that the Liberal government has the upper hand when it comes to administration and regulations regarding disability pensions.
That was the point of view put forward in the 1956 session by this member of the Conservative party.
I am sure every hon. member of this house has received a number of letters from constituents complaining about the regulations under this act. The reason I rose to my feet this afternoon is because I received this morning a pathetic letter from a constituent of mine who has been the breadwinner in her family for a number of years due to the disability of her husband. She was anxiously looking forward to some change in the regulations which would at long last permit her husband to draw a pension under the terms of this act but, as has already been noted, the government has not seen fit to propose the necessary changes. There is still time for this to be done and I would simply like to join with my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East, in urging the minister to give very serious consideration at this session to bringing about changes in the regulations in order to enable many thousands of Canadians who are disabled and who, as the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska pointed out on a former occasion, have every right to receive some assistance under this act.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: That was done.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Monleilh thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 23, to amend the Disabled Persons Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT


Jay Waldo Monteith: the second read-96698-46
Old Age Security Act
ing of Bill No. 19, to amend the Old Age Security Act.


George Carlyle Marler: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I understood we were going on with the veterans' affairs resolution before second reading of this bill; is that correct?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, this order of business was announced on Friday evening. We have had a lengthy and, on the whole, a very constructive discussion of the resolution preceding the introduction of this old age security bill. In that debate nearly everything was said that needs to be said in explanation of the purpose of the bill.
The amendments proposed are simple and clear-cut and require little explanation. It is proposed to raise the amount of the old age security benefit from $46 to $55 monthly and to reduce the residence requirement from 20 to 10 years.
I have already given in my earlier statement to the committee an estimate of the annual cost involved in putting these changes into effect-$92 million annually for the $9 increase from $46 to $55 and $3.5 million for the reduction in the residence requirement from 20 to 10 years. This last mentioned amendment is expected to result in the first twelve months in the admission of some 5,000 persons to our pension rolls who are not eligible at the present time.
In addition to these two important changes, we propose to amend the act so as to permit pensioners to absent themselves from Canada for as long as six months in any calendar year without loss of benefit. The purpose of this is to grant to pensioners a greater freedom of movement than is accorded to them under existing legislation. The estimated cost of this amendment cannot be established very accurately but will certainly not be very great. It may perhaps amount to as much as half a million dollars annually. It is proposed that the three amendments be effective as of November 1, 1957.
I might point out that beginning with the cheques which went out for the month of October we have adopted a new administrative procedure which will advance the monthly mailing date by two days and result in old age security beneficiaries receiving their cheques without fail before the end of the month.
I have listened attentively to all that has been said in the course of the debate on the resolution preceding the bill and, with one possible exception, the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix), who

Old Age Security Act
made it clear that he was opposed to the reduction from 20 to 10 years in the residence period, everyone else in the house seemed to be ready, in fact, eager to vote for the government's proposals.
So far as the remarks of the former minister are concerned I should like first of all to thank him for announcing that he and his party will support this legislation. I thank him also for his friendly reference to myself. I must confess that I was a little disappointed in the length of time he devoted to events of the distant past, events, I suppose, which everyone but the hon. member has pretty well forgotten after 30 years of more important happenings.
My hon. friend made reference to the proposed reduction in the residence requirement from 20 to 10 years. I believe he agrees with this proposal. It is true that the 1950 parliamentary committee recommended a 20-year residence period for old age security and consideration of 15 years for old age assistance. It is equally true that in 1950 some of the provinces expressed reluctance to accept a lower residence requirement for old age assistance than for old age security, but the government is not proposing a lower requirement for old age assistance than for old age security. It is proposing a uniform reduction for each from 20 to 10 years.
My hon. friend made reference to adjustments necessitated by the rising costs of living. The present adjustment in the old age benefit level is itself an adjustment to meet the rising cost of living. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that if the cost of living continues to spiral in the future as it has in the past further adjustments will be necessary. This has been the experience with benefit levels ever since 1927. That is precisely why I said in my opening statement that we did not consider that there was anything final or sacred about the amount of $55 that is now proposed.
I do not suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we have succeeded completely in pleasing everybody. Many members have suggested that in certain respects we have not gone far enough and others that we have gone too far. The official opposition seems to speak with divided voices on this question. For example, the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, as I have already pointed out, is opposed to the reduction in the residence requirement from 20 to 10 years. His colleague, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), thinks it should be reduced to five, while the last-mentioned member's former cabinet colleague, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair), considers that 10 years is just about right and that

if we were to lower the residence requirement to five years, as suggested by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, we would encourage an influx of aged persons from other lands to Canada.
While I do not share entirely the fears expressed on this point by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, I agree with him that a 10 year residence provision seems to be a wise and sound requirement in all the present circumstances. This represents, I believe, a reasonable middle of the road position between two extremes. We have felt that a 20-year residence requirement was a reactionary and unfair provision. Equally, in my opinion, a residence period of only five years would be premature and unwise at this time, while it would be nothing else than rash and risky, even irresponsible, to suggest, as I understand the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) did the other night, that we should eventually dispense with a residence period altogether.
I have noted also, Mr. Speaker, a number of suggestions from different quarters of the house, chiefly from C.C.F. and Social Credit members, that we should abolish altogether the restrictions on the length of temporary absences from Canada. The member for Fraser Valley wants us to pay an old age security benefit to pensioners in any country of the world. In this way, he says, our senior citizens will become ambassadors of good will for Canada. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) demanded that I have the decency to tell the house why we did not intend to abolish the provision limiting the length of absences from Canada.
Our thinking with respect to this question of absences from Canada is very much the same as on the score of residence. We seek a prudent, middle course. We consider the present provisions much too restrictive. On the other hand, we do not consider that we have a proven case for a complete abolition of the requirement that pensioners, to be eligible, must continue to live at least a portion of the time in Canada. This is tied up with a number of questions such as, for example, the extent to which our present system is, in fact, a contributory one or, instead, based on general or even earmarked taxation. In my opinion our system is neither completely contributory nor completely noncontributory, and for this reason I believe we should move carefully and slowly in this matter until we know exactly what the consequences will be.
In addition to this I should point out that the demands of those who argue that we should continue payments to pensioners living outside of Canada run counter to the

demands that we further reduce the residence requirement. Is it seriously suggested that we should reduce the residence requirement to 10 and then perhaps to five and then why not to four, three, two or one years? There is no particular reason for stopping at five. Is it also suggested that we should at the present time agree that once a pension is awarded it carry a life entitlement, no matter where the pensioner goes to live? Surely these two proposals, when carried to their logical extremes, cancel each other out and become sheer irresponsibility. We could reach a ridiculous situation where a person could move to Canada at 69 and leave at 70 carrying with him a pension for life paid for by the Canadian taxpayers.
We cannot, in my opinion, go too far in either of these directions without jeopardizing the soundness of the scheme. That is why we propose to follow the prudent middle course, which is what the people of this nation would expect of our administration.
Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, in replying to some questions put by the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Marler), I stated that the increase in old age security
Old Age Security Act
benefit now proposed is in our judgment not only a fair and reasonable increase but it also keeps pace with the rise in the cost of living and in national productivity that has occurred since the commencement of old age security. The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) suggested that I might table statistical data bearing on this point. I am glad to do so at this time. With the permission of the house, I should like to place on Hansard two tables, as follows: One, a tabulation showing changes in the consumer price index since 1927, changes in the maximum amount of pension payable since 1927; and changes in the purchasing power value of the pension payable each year since 1927, all based on 1949 as equal to 100; two, a tabulation showing the total amount paid out in old age pensions each year since 1927 in relation to the gross national product each year. Have I permission, Mr. Speaker?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has my hon. friend some extra copies of these tables?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the minister permission to place these tables on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(The tables are as follows:)



TABLE I


[Stage Direction]
Date	Consumer Price Index <a>
(1949 = 100)	Maximum Pension Payable	
			Current Dollars	1949 Dollars
			$	$
1927	
74.6	240	321.721928	
75.0	240	320.001929	
75.8	240	316.621930	
75.3	240	318.731931	
67.9	240	353.461932	
61.7	240	388.981933	
58.8	240	408.161934	
59.G	240	402.681935	
59.9	240	400.671936	
61.1	240	392.801937	
63.0	240	380.951938	
63.7	240	376.771939	
63.2	240	379.751940	240	365.301941	
69.6	240	344.831942	
72.9	240	329.221943	
74.2	300 (Sept.)	404.311944	
74.6	300	402.141945	
75.0	300	400.001946	
77.5	300	387.101947	
84.8	360 (May)	424.531948	360	371.131949	
100.0	480 (May)	480.001950	
102.9	480	466.471951	
113.7	480	422.161952	
116.5	480	412.021953	
115.5	480	415.581954	
116.2	480	413.081955	
116.4	480	412.371956	
118.1	480	406.441957 (Jan.-June)	
120.8	480	397.351957 (July-Sept.)	552	450.24Now Proposed	660	538.34
(a) From D.B.S. Canadian Statistical Review.
96698-46£
716	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Old Age Security Act


[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Year
Gross National	Federal and Provincial
Product (a) Expenditures on Old Age Pensions
	$ million	$ million
1927 28	
5,647	0.31928 29	
6,105	1.71929 SO 	
6,166	3.11930-31	
5,546	11.31931 32 	
4,560	13.41932 33	
3,767	15.41933 34 	
3,552	16.41934 35	
4,034	19.91935-36	
4,345	22.41936-37 	
4,701	28.21937 38	
5,355	38.01938 39 	
5,233	37.71939-40	
5,707	38.81940-41 	
6,872	38.51941-42 	
8,517	38.11942-43 	
10,539	38.51943-44 	
11,183	42.91944-45 	
11,954	52.71945-46	
11,850	55.01946 47	
12,026	58.41947-48	
13,768	76.01948-49	
15,613	85.61949 50	
16,462	119.51950-51 	
18,203	132.41951 52	
21,474	183.61952 53	
23,255	361.41953 54	
24,473	379.61954-55	
24,336	394.91955-56	
26,916	408.11956-57	
29,866	419.91957 58	-	527.0 (estimated)1958 59	626.0 (estimated)
(a) For calendar year nearest to fiscal year, e.g. 1927 for 1927-28.
Jay Waldo Monteith: I believe that these two
tables will give to the hon. member the information he requested and will fully support the assertions I have made.
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) also requested certain information relating to the number of pensioners leaving Canada to live elsewhere. We have obtained from our regional offices data indicating that since the beginning of our old age security program some 2,500 pensioners have left Canada to live elsewhere and have, consequently, given up their right to benefit.
I would point out, however, Mr. Speaker, that these figures do not provide a reliable indication as to the number of pensioners who would leave the country to live elsewhere if they were free to carry their pension with them outside Canada. Perhaps a more significant figure to consider in this connection is the number of suspensions of benefit on account of temporary absences from Canada. In the calendar year 1956 there were about

13,000	cases in which benefit was suspended because the pensioner was absenting himself from Canada for a temporary period. I do not suggest for a minute that all these individuals would remain permanently outside of Canada if they were free to do so. My point is, rather, that the probable figure in which we are interested lies somewhere between the two figures I have given.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I have now dealt with most of the specific questions that were raised in the course of the previous debate at the resolution stage. I have only one point to make in conclusion. We have heard suggestions during this debate from different quarters of the house that the pension should range all the way from $75 to $100 to $200. I do not profess to know very much about-


Harold Edward Winch: Who asked for $200?


Jay Waldo Monteith: You may ask questions later. I do not profess to know very much about

$75 or $100 or $200 pensions, but I do know one thing. When this government, a Progressive Conservative administration, says $55 a month it means exactly that-no its or buts or maybes, no hidden gimmick such as you will find in all the proposals of the three opposition parties. I believe the people of Canada will appreciate that kind of honesty.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to try to cover all the ground which has been covered by the minister's statement on second reading. I should like, however, to go back to some of the points that were raised in the discussion in committee during the resolution stage, and to preface my remarks by expressing regret that I was not able to remain in the committee on Friday to listen to the minister's answers to some of the questions which I had put to him. I do not want to spend an undue amount of time now in going back over this same ground, but I should like to emphasize two points which I made during discussion in committee. These points were with regard to the terms of the pledges given by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in connection with old age security.
When I read the minister's remarks on Friday with regard to this aspect of the question I thought he had made a very valiant effort to justify the position which he had taken, but that surely he did not consider the measure with which we are dealing met the two points I raised the other day and which were firmly promised to the Canadian electors during the campaign in May and June. I might express these two points briefly by saying, first of all, that the amount of the pension was to be adjusted to the rising cost of living, if it continued. I think I should reiterate the quotation which I gave to the committee earlier, because I think it is quite clear from the speech that was given that by no stretch of the imagination could it be said this bill implements that pledge to the Canadian electors. I should like to put the quotation on Hansard again, and it reads as follows:
We intend, this September, to call together parliament and there and then fix a fair and reasonable amount for the old age pensioners, indeed for the other pensioners,-
It is this second part to which I should like to draw attention.
-and also make provision for a formula whereby due allowance will be made in the future for the rising cost of living, provided that it continues.
It is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, that regardless of what the minister has said, and regardless of the relation which the amount of $55 bears to the previous pension or bears to the national productivity or any other
Old Age Security Act
figure, there is nothing whatever in tnis bill that would satisfy the pledge of the Prime Minister that provision would be made for a formula whereby due allowance would be made in the future for the rising cost of living. Regardless of the efforts of the minister, which were very laudable and understandable, the plain fact does remain that the bill contains no such formula as was specifically promised in the federal election broadcast of May 22, 1957. Nor does it meet the other point which forms part of the pledge given by the Prime Minister in May at Toronto, that was that the amount of the pension would be geared to the national productivity.
Surely there can be no suggestion for a moment that the bill contains anything that gears the amount of the pension, $55, to the national productivity. Quite obviously the amount of the pension, the aggregate cost of the pension in any year, has a relationship to the gross national product or to the gross national product for 1956, but the word "gear" in the minds of Canadians would stand for some process embodied in the legislation by which changes in the gross national product would be reflected in a movement, preferably upward, of the amount of the pension.
I want merely to emphasize the fact that the bill which we are now discussing contains no provision whatever to link the present amount of the pension with future changes in the gross national product or with national productivity, if I might use the words of the Prime Minister when he spoke in Toronto.
The second point I want to make is that the minister, in dealing with the bill on second reading and indeed in his discussion of the measure in the committee stage when he closed the debate, carefully stayed away from dealing with what I consider to be one of the major problems arising in connection with this measure. I refer to the effect which it has upon the total cost of social security in Canada and the effect that cost may have on expenditures for national defence.
The other day I pointed out that so far as I could tell the total cost of social security has now reached the point where of the tax dollar that is retained by the federal government, after remitting to the provinces their share of the taxes which the federal government collects on their behalf and remits under the terms of the tax-sharing agreement, 27 cents is actually devoted to social security. In other words, the cost has reached a substantial amount. I pointed out that for the last fiscal year the estimated cost of social security-that is to say of

Old Age Security Act
health, welfare and social security-had reached the rather substantial total of $1,050 million. I pointed out that changes in the number of recipients, or growth in the number of those who are entitled to receive old age security, family allowances and the other social security measures which have been under consideration, would account for the addition of another $30 million expressed in round figures.
I pointed out also that in the earlier part of this year 1957 changes in the various social security measures had added $108 million to the annual cost. The minister has told us again this afternoon that the cost of this measure will add another $96 million to that total. During the discussion of some of these other measures he told us that there will be a further addition of approximately $13 million. We can therefore see that the total cost of social security is not far away from $1,300 million, if we think in terms of what the cost to the Canadian taxpaper would have been had all these measures taken effect on May 1, 1957.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want at this stage -and perhaps it is not appropriate that I should do so-to deal with the other questions which fit in with this question of the cost of social security and the additional costs that this measure involves. I think I should merely sum up the views I expressed the other day by repeating what I said then, namely that while I think Canadians all across the country welcome any advance in social security measures that can be supported and sustained by the Canadian economy, I am sure they would view with considerable disquiet advances in social security that were going to be made at the expense of national security. I had hoped that the minister would be able to deal with this point when he closed the debate at the committee stage. Perhaps he will have an opportunity of doing so later on in the present debate. I think it is a point of considerable importance and one with which he should deal specifically.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister should tell us what the government proposes to do in connection with the fuller investigation of old age security which the Prime Minister promised when he spoke at Anti-gonish, Nova Scotia early in the campaign. At that time he expressed quite clearly the opinion that we were dealing with a contributory system. His opinion does not . seem to be entirely shared by the minister himself. If I might just quote one sentence from the report in the Globe and Mail of May 1, 
1957, of the Antigonish meeting, I think it would show the views of the Prime Minister on the subject:
The U.S. program, he said, is contributory but many Canadians forget that through two per cent each of their income tax, their sales tax and corporation tax they contribute to and pay for old age pensions.
Mr. Speaker, I shall spare the house the tedium of listening to the annual results of the old age security fund since the incep-tioin of that fund at the beginning of 1952. However, I think I should again draw to the attention of the minister a point that we raised during the committee stage, namely the effect of these new proposals; and I include not only those which are now under discussion but also those that have already taken effect as the result of changes made earlier in this year. I should like him to explain much more fully than he has done how it is intended to finance the additional cost of old age security.
We all recall that when old age security was instituted late in 1951, simultaneously there was established an account known as the old age security fund to which were to be paid two per cent of the income tax, two per cent of the sales tax and two per cent of the corporation income tax. During the early years of the fund there were deficits in the fund because the amount paid out for old age security exceeded the receipts from those three taxes. But in the current year, the year 1957-58, we had reached the point in the beginning of the year when the estimated total of old age security pensions exceeded in the estimate by only about $6 million the receipts which it was expected would go into the fund during the fiscal year 1957-58. Since then two important additions to the outgo of that fund have been made. First of all the amount of approximately $60 million resulting from the changes made at the earlier session this year, and now this further addition which we are in process of discussing and which will add a further $96 million. Hence, in a word, Mr. Speaker, we are adding some $156 million to the outgo of this fund.
I realize-as, of course, does the minister- that the whole addition is not going to be effective in this fiscal year 1957-58 because the effective date of the increases-the one voted by the previous government and the one which we are now discussing-which will be November 1, 1957, will mean that the whole burden of those increases will not be felt in the current year. But nevertheless there is added an amount of $156 million to the obligations or the outgo of the fund, and I think this house is justified in

asking the minister, either when he comes to reply at this stage of the bill or in committee, to tell us just how it is proposed to deal with what seems to be a much larger annual deficit in the old age security fund than we have known at any time in the past.
I know that in the past the deficits have represented not unsubstantial amounts which have been made good from time to time by votes of this house. But I think the minister should go further, having regard to the substantial addition or, perhaps I should say, the substantial additions made in this current year because so far as I can see the fund is going to be very much in the red unless a process of some kind is devised to make good these deficits. Is it the intention of the government to increase the amount of the taxes diverted to this fund? Is it the intention to levy a tax specially for old age security? I think the members of this house and the public of Canada generally are entitled to know how this very substantial expenditure is going to be financed.
I think it has been made perfectly clear by what has been said by my hon. friend the member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and other members who have spoken on behalf of the official opposition that we intend to give this measure our full support and of course it is our intention to vote for the second reading of this bill.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. When the minister was making his introductory statement I believe he said I had recommended the abolition of the residence qualification with regard to the particular measure before us. I would just like to make a reference to page 632 of Hansard of October 31, 1957 where in the first column towards the bottom I said the following:
The second part of this resolution proposes to make a reduction in the residence requirement from 20 to 10 years. I believe that this proposal is commendable. There are those who would propose that the residence qualification should be removed altogether. Personally I am of the opinion that there is some justification for the continuation of that principle. However, I do agree that the 10-year period is much more just than the 20-year period that is presently in effect.
Possibly the minister was just allowing his enthusiasm to run away with him.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I certainly must apologize, Mr. Speaker, if I misquoted the hon. member.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, during my years of residence or presence-I do not know which you would call it-in this house I have spoken quite a number of times on the question of old age pensions but I have not spoken previously in this debate on the resolution. I certainly
Old Age Security Act
support the bill as an improvement on previous legislation and I am not going to deal with it at length. I think my colleagues expressed our point of view very well at the resolution stage. However, I do want to make two or three comments with respect to certain aspects of this social security legislation, after listening to the minister's opening remarks and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker,
I will do so with my usual economy of language and charity of purpose.
I was interested in what the minister had to say with respect to allowing a reduction in the period of residence, yet not permitting the old age pensioner to live fulltime in some other country and still enjoy the benefits of his pension. I have listened very carefully to his explanation. I am one who thinks that the 10 years residence is very fair indeed; I think it comes in between the two extremes, the extreme of 20 years and the extreme of no-residence requirement. I think it is very fair to the newcomers in this country and to the Canadian people as a whole.
However, I have never quite been able to see why persons receiving old age security, which is largely on a contributory basis, should not receive the same privileges accorded to persons receiving other federal government pensions; for instance such persons as judges and so on. I have always thought there was a measure of injustice in that situation. This bill does improve the situation by permitting an old age pensioner to be away for what would be in effect a total of one year, if necessary, by taking six months of one year and six months of the next but I do not think this improvement meets all cases. I would suggest, that while I am in favour of the stand taken by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) consideration be given to those people on old age security who would benefit by residence in another country. I have run into a number of cases and would like to suggest to the minister that as he does not see fit to amend the legislation so as to permit a pensioner to leave Canada and enjoy his pension in any country where he wishes to live consideration be given to permitting those persons who find it necessary for health reasons to leave Canada to do so. I do urge that this first step in the right direction be given some consideration.
I would like to deal for a moment or two with the question of the changing purchasing power of the dollar and, as expressed by some other members, the necessity for some formula to create, shall I say, a situation of stability with respect to our old age pension scheme. I understand that it was one of the promises of the members opposite, or the Prime Minister himself (Mr. Diefenbaker),

Old Age Security Act
that this legislation would include some such formula. I did not personally read that; I am just going by remarks made in the house during the debate which I judge would be correct because there has been no denial of that promise to date by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) and I am sure he would be only too ready to correct the statements if the hon. gentlemen to my right had made a mistake.
This is however something which has caused the economists a good deal of anxiety throughout the years. I have heard people say "Well, if you create a formula and commence automatic increases or adjustments in the old age pensions to meet the cost of living you must face the possibility of the cost of living going down or the purchasing power of the dollar going down, as well as going up." I think the history of the value of money certainly indicates that there is a very slight possibility of that and for the information of the house I want to put on record a table issued by the institute of life insurance in Canada in the year 1950. In the year 1939 a dollar was taken as worth 100 cents and in terms of the dollar being worth 100 cents in 1939, the purchasing value in other years would be as follows:
1820 	 1830 	 1840 		
1850 		
1860 		
1870 		
1880 		
1890 		
1900 		
1910 		
1920 		
1930 		
1940 		
1949 		
Since 1949 we have had somewhat over a 23 per cent decline in the value of the dollar so on the basis of this table the purchasing power of the dollar to-day is something around 46 or 47 cents. Now there has been almost a steady decline in the purchasing power of money-any certain unit of money -and I think this applies to all western nations in the last 100 years. I do think that serious consideration should be given to providing a formula for the automatic adjustment of the basic old age security pension to compensate for any increase in the cost of living.
My third proposal has to do with the question of a national pension plan. As many members will remember, for some years I have been one of those associated with other members of this group who have urged the necessity for a national industrial pension plan. I have gone into that at some length on previous occasions.

I do not intend to do that now, but I would point out that thinking people in all the western countries are realizing that with the changing circumstances of modern life- increased productivity and changing standards of living-some other contributory pension schemes are required to supplement our basic old age security legislation. This matter has received a great deal of consideration in recent years in the Scandinavian countries, and it has also received a great deal of attention in Great Britain by both major parties in the House of Commons and particularly by the labour party. They have not come to a definite conclusion, but they are having a very thorough examination made of the possibilities of such a plan, and various proposals have been put forward.
I think I should mention this while we are discussing the present type of legislation because I think it is only a prelude to some more comprehensive, sounder and all-embracing legislation which the increased productivity of our economy demands. I, for one, think the government should give serious consideration to proposals for a national pension plan which will act as a supplement to old age security benefits and reflect the opportunities in this country for providing increasing security in old age, coupled with a measure of comfort as a result of our capacity to produce and as an expression of our Christian ideals.


Sydney Herbert Stewart Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the minister
in replying to a question raised by an hon. member of this house did, in fact, emphasize a weakness in this legislation. I will support the bill with only one exception. I personally will vote against the decrease from 20 to 10 years in the residence qualification, if the bill is left in its present form. I believe that I will be able to show that this particular clause has the effect of creating serious discrimination in the position of pensioners and taxpayers.
In 1949 the cost of living index was 100 and the pension $40. In September 1957 the cost of living index was 123.3 which would require a pension of $49.32 per month to be proportionate. On the basis of the cost of living index the increase to $55 would suggest an improvement in the position of pensioners over 1949.
However, a comparison of the average weekly wages and salaries of industrial workers as shown in the August 1957 publication of the dominion bureau of statistics gives a rather different picture. The average wage at May 1, 1949 was $43.10; by August 1957 it was $68.38. Comparatively the old age pension would have had to be increased

from $40 in 1949 to $63.46 in 1957. Thus it is clearly shown that $55 a month will not give pensioners their share of the rising standard of living which we have enjoyed in Canada since 1949. In fact, they will, proportionately to the general position of people in Canada, be worse off than they were in 1940. Until our old age pensions have been increased to a point where they reflect a proportionate standard of living, at least equal to that which we acknowledged in 1940, no further group should be given a pension which does not require a means test.
When the Old Age Security Act was created in 1952 it was stated that the measure would be financed by sales tax to the extent of 2 per cent on the cost of goods chargeable, 2 per cent of corporation income tax and 2 per cent of personal income tax to a maximum of $60. There is little doubt that these charges were defined to justify the removal of the means test. In turn the public feel that this particular pension is contributory, and therefore a right at the age of 70. It is probably on these grounds that the government suggests the reduction of the qualifying period. Herein lie the main injustices of the bill.
Under the provisions of this bill persons may come to Canada at the age of 60 and qualify for a pension at 70. In this short period, and at that age, they will not contribute materially through the taxes mentioned. On the other hand, a person who has lived in Canada all his life and paid taxes throughout that period can obtain a pension at 65 years of age only if he qualifies under a means test.
I note that the period of disqualification is to be increased from three to six months. This is admirable in itself, but ridiculous when related to the qualifying period. Persons may live and pay taxes for 70 years in Canada, yet lose their pensions if, even for health reasons, they find it necessary to live elsewhere for more than six months. The whole character of this reduction clause reflects adversely on the comparative position of those who have contributed so much throughout their lives, not only in taxes but in the development of the national wealth and culture of our country.
On the other hand the federal government does have a responsibility to senior citizens brought into Canada. A pension is the finest way to render assistance when there is need.
The Social Credit stand that basic pensions should be at least $60 based on their relative position as acknowledged in 1949, is fully justified. An escalator clause would be a good addition to the bill, but, if included, it should give consideration not only to the cost of
Old Age Security Act
living but also to the standard of living as reflected by the wage level or the level of national productivity.
In conclusion, I personally feel that the injustices which I have described can be easily avoided. Those who become entitled to pension by the reduction in the qualifying period should be subject to the same means test as required under the Old Age Assistance Act. Any savings thus made could be used to lessen the severity of the means test regulations for all pensioners or to improve further the position of our pensioners who find it necessary to live elsewhere than in Canada.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, the minister in his remarks referred to the number of different figures which have been presented by members of the opposition and I should like to point out that there should be some logical basis from which certain figures are derived. The question of what amount should be fixed ought not to be made a matter of political considerations, but rather, it should be set at a level sufficiently high to meet the needs of our senior citizens.
I was disappointed in the reply given by the minister because he did not satisfactorily set forth the reasons why the government did not use such a yardstick in arriving at the figures we have before us. When I spoke on the resolution I placed on record the evidence of the Montreal council of social welfare agencies which had set the sum required two years ago at over $70. In other words, as a result of their investigations it was determined on the basis of Montreal prices that an amount in excess of $70 was required in order to take care of the needs of the senior citizens. Therefore when we suggested the sum of $75 that figure bore a direct relationship to the economic needs of that group of Canadian citizens.
In his reply the minister did not refer to the commitment made by his party through the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) which can be expressed in one sentence taken from the booklet entitled "The New National Policy of the Conservative Party" issued just prior to the last election. I am going to read this sentence because I think it sets forth the government's commitment in this regard. It reads:
The Conservative party proposes to set the amount at a figure high enough to meet the needs of our older citizens.
In making his statement the minister did not tell us whether he thinks $55 meets the needs of our senior citizens but if he does think so then I suggest that he talk to people who have tried to live on the present old age pension. My colleague, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) referred to the

Old Age Security Act
account written by a Toronto newspaperman some time ago who had set out to try to live on the old age pension of the day. I suggest that the figure of $55 is very unrealistic if it is designed to meet the needs of our senior citizens as outlined in the Conservative party program.
One thing I would like to have the minister clear up when he replies at the conclusion of this stage of the debate is how the government arrived at the figure of $55. If he does not feel it is sufficient to meet the needs of our senior citizens, then how did the government happen to pick the figure $55? I think the main argument revolves around that point.
The minister made some reference to the request of members of the opposition for the removal of the limitation on the period of residence of pensioners outside Canada. My colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), made a most worth-while suggestion when he said that if the government is not prepared to give a blanket permission, one might say, to our senior citizens, those in receipt of old age security, to reside outside of Canada on a permanent basis then some consideration should be given at least to those who must live outside Canada for reasons of health or those who choose to do so by reason of the fact they have no relatives in this country and prefer to live with relatives abroad.
As far as the main provision in this bill is concerned, I think it should be made perfectly clear that the figure $75 which we suggest is necessary at this time is not a figure selected out of thin air nor one tied to any previous pension. It is the actual amount of cash which we believe to be the barest minimum amount upon which a recipient of old age security can possibly hope to live.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part in this debate and go on record as saying that though I welcome the increase of $9 to old age pensioners, I feel it is my duty to plead the case of those among our senior citizens who are destitute and who have no source of income other than the old age pension. In my practice of medicine in my riding of Trinity in Toronto I have had the opportunity on several occasions of visiting as many as 700 old age pensioners who live under one roof in Lambert Lodge in that city. Also in my practice, which is mainly concerned with poor people and those on welfare, I have had many experiences which have led me to plead their case, which is what I want to do this afternoon.
May I make an ardent appeal to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. 
Monteith) to use his influence with the Ontario government in an effort to obtain from that government a greater generosity in the old age assistance given to those people who are dependent solely on the $55 a month pension. Furthermore, I think the Ontario government should be asked by the minister to reduce the entitlement age for receipt of old age assistance to 60. There are many people who after the age of 60 are too sick to work or who cannot secure employment because no employer will hire them.
I am disappointed that there is no escalator clause in the bill before us providing protection to the purchasing value of the $9 increase which old age pensioners will receive. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) made his first speech in the election campaign at Massey Hall in Toronto he did promise the Canadian people that he would support any old age pension increase with an escalator clause and he also promised that the increase would be geared to the national productivity.
I agree with the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) that the period of residence in Canada required for entitlement to the old age pension should be reduced to five years, the same period of residence required in the case of applications for Canadian citizenship. I also agree with the hon. member that the six months period of permissible absence from Canada is discriminatory. I have encountered cases in my practice where pensioners are required to live outside Canada for reasons of health or who would prefer to live abroad to be with relatives but because of the residence qualifications sometimes destitute widows and others are unable to leave Canada for fear of being denied receipt of the old age pension.
Mr. Speaker, although I will vote for the $9 increase in the old age pension I could do so with a greater feeling of satisfaction that justice is being done if these suggestions were carried out.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group recognize the value of this particular piece of legislation, recognizing that it contains the three fundamentals. The increase in the pension from $46 to $55 in itself makes this an important piece of legislation; however, we have always stressed that it does not meet the needs of senior citizens and from time to time we have suggested that at this time they should have a basic pension of at least $60 per month.
When the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) participated in this debate on October 31 as reported at page 637 of

Hansard of that date I noted he took issue with us in respect to this particular matter. I would just like to point out one or two discrepancies in his argument. For instance, at page 637 he is reported as saying:
I hope that when this bill comes forward after the resolution is adopted it will contain a provision for an automatic annual revision based on the year-end cost of living to maintain the purchasing power, not just of the old age pension but of a minimum basic retirement income. A very modest basic retirement income would be $200 a month for a couple on old age security, made up of $110 a month from the new $55 pension, plus $90 of their own savings or pensions.
We in this group feel, Mr. Speaker, that the former minister of fisheries is recognizing a fact that is fundamental, that there should be a basic minimum of $200 for those people in this country who are in need. For that reason we of the Social Credit group still stick by our guns and say that the legislation would be much better if it provided a basic pension of $60 plus an additional $40, $20 to be provided by the federal government and $20 by the province for the needy people of our country who are and should be in receipt of old age security. The former minister of fisheries went on to say:
I think such a provision would have immediate and very salutary effects.
It is gratifying indeed to see that he feels that the effect of a monthly pension of $200 for two people would be beneficial. It is unfortunate, however, that when he was in a position to suggest to the former government that that amount should be the minimum he apparently carried so little influence with the government of the day that his government did not see to it that the legislation he now suggests might be desirable was made effective.
I say that we in this group will support a monthly basic pension of $55, not because we think it is the end in itself but because we trust it is the beginning of the means to an end whereby the present government will eventually realize that it is desirable to increase the pension to a basic $60. In my own province we have recognized that there is a necessity to assist those particularly in need and, as I have said before, we have given these people an additional $20 per month under a means test. If you add to that the additional cost of providing medical, dental and optical care you find that the people in my province will in all likelihood receive $75 a month plus the additional medical, dental and optical assistance.
There are those who may have a personal viewpoint with respect to the clause of the bill embodying a change in the period of qualification from 20 to 10 years. However,
Old Age Security Act
we feel it is a desirable change. There are those individuals who have lived in Canada for 10 years who we think should be eligible for old age security. Possibly they have not contributed in a dollars and cents way to make themselves eligible but they have brought with them families, sons and daughters, who possibly have contributed and are contributing much in excess of the amount required to extend social assistance to these people. As I indicated earlier, there may be some hon. members who will disagree with that policy but we say it is necessary, and rightfully so, that these people should be eligible for old age security and to deny them that privilege would be just as wrong basically as to deny it to the ordinary Canadian. I think the arguments that have been made with respect to those who have lived in this country for 10 years and have reached the age of 70 are not only logical but just.
There is one point that I wish the minister would reconsider. We in this group have emphasized it on more than one occasion. I refer to the proposed clause to provide for a period of six months absence from Canada. I say that we should permit these people to leave the country for at least one year. It is not the case that people who have reached 70 years of age wish to leave Canada. I think the minister indicated in introducing the bill that there were some 2,500 who had refused their pensions and had left Canada knowing full well that they would not get a pension. I am not too sure and I am sure the minister does not know the exact number of people who would become eligible if we permitted them to leave Canada for a full year and to stay out of the country for reasons of health or some other reason best known to themselves.
It has been suggested from time to time that ours is a contributory pension plan. If that were the prime consideration that in itself might be sufficient to justify our plea. However, I do not think it is the prime consideration. These people who leave Canada sincerely desire to do so not because they do not wish to be in Canada but because I dare say 90 per cent of them have to do so for reasons of health. The minister may not be acquainted with many of them but I am satisfied that we can find a good number of people who have left for that very reason and who, because they have not the money, find it impossible to return to Canada every three months or every six months as the legislation would provide. If they did so they would find it absolutely impossible to live the type of life that they are ordered to by their doctors or the type of life which

Old Age Security Act
would give them the ease and comfort they have a right to expect after having spent so many years building this country.
I think the minister should reconsider that particular question; tell us what he expects it might cost, and give us a basically sound reason for not doing so, and more particularly a moral reason why these people should be denied this privilege when for reasons of health or other reasons they desire to stay with their sons, daughters or friends in a foreign land where they can be happier.


Mr. A. D. McPhillips (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, in the constituency I have the honour to represent, Victoria, British Columbia, we have a great many senior citizens. They have come there over the years because of the great natural beauty of the location and also because of the superb climate. Irrespective of some of the criticism I have heard in the house, these people are going to look upon this piece of legislation as one of the greatest boons they have received in many years.
It is odd to hear hon. gentlemen opposite quibbling about the increase. I should like to say that during their term of office they systematically ignored the plight of these elderly citizens and it was not until they were in an election year and found themselves in the throes of deathbed repentance that they finally came up with an increase of $6, which was an insult. It was not as if the previous government was a thrifty government, far from it. They were the greatest spenders in the history of the nation. We attacked them on that ground in 1953 but it took the people of Canada a little while for the message to soak in, so to speak.
You know, Mr. Speaker, it was the late Sir Robert Borden who said of the Canadian people that they are of a practical turn of mind rather than a political turn of mind. It is not until the need for a change becomes manifest that you get a change. Prior to 1953, and since that time, the outgoing government kept punching away at the national till so long and so loudly that it sounded like the anvil chorus, and the people of Canada heard it.
The hon. member for St. Antoine-West-mount (Mr. Marler) says that there is no formula contained in this bill. My suggestion is that it is not the practice to put a formula into a statute.


George Carlyle Marler: Your leader might have thought of that before he made this pledge.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: This is an essential piece of legislation. It is the fulfilment of a pledge, just as the pledge to review it in the light of the cost of living will be fulfilled. It is for this reason the legislation should be

treated as an emergent measure. There is no doubt about the bill passing because the opposition is going to vote for it and, for the first time in many years, these very worthy senior citizens of Canada are going to receive some recognition.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McPhillips) has been in the house a relatively short time, and that is what leads him to say this is the greatest piece of legislation in our history. I think that is less than generous of him. It was only in 1952 that the former Liberal administration introduced the legislation that is now being improved upon, and that measure raised the cost of old age pensions to the federal treasury from less than $100 million to the present cost of approximately $500 million. This does not indicate a complete lack of discernment regarding the plight of the senior citizens of this country. The measure before us is simply an improvement of legislation which was introduced by the former administration on the recommendation of an all party committee which sat during the session of 1951.
The minister says he believes every one in the country, except the former minister of national health and welfare, has forgotten the history of the social legislation in this country. I do not wish to impute motives, but I am sure the present minister would be very unhappy if the voters forgot next spring that the present administration had increased the pension by some $9. We are not opposing this bill in any way. The fact that the former administration, acting on the advice of their advisers and the members supporting them, felt that a $6 increase was sufficient, having regard to all the other relative factors, is no reason for us opposing the amendment at this time which will provide for a greater increase. The present administration in their wisdom, and no doubt upon further advice from their advisers, feel it is a proper thing to do at this time and that it does bring our welfare measures more into line. We are happy to go along with that and support it.
The minister made a statement, I think quite a wise one, with reference to the residence qualification, that is the time a pensioner should be allowed to live outside of Canada and still draw old age security payments. One can see how ridiculous a situation it would be if it were possible for a person to come here at 69 years of age, reside for one year, and after having become entitled to the pension live in some other country. On the other hand, would it not be possible to allow a person to receive a pro

rata portion of the pension based on the number of years he resided in Canada? Under pension plans whereby a person pays 6 per cent of his income into the plan a person would be able to build up a pension similar to that which is provided by the old age security payment. It seems to me, therefore, that if a person resided in Canada for 15 or 20 years, he should be allowed to leave the country and still receive the full amount of the old age security pension. If the period of residence were 10 years, then he should receive a pro rata reduction based on the 10 years.
Something must be done. As was pointed out by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn), in many instances where a middle-aged couple come to Canada they bring dependents who will continue to reside in Canada and assist in the gross national productivity of this country. In cases of sickness, or in cases where the relatives of the aged people are living in other countries, or the relatives are not in a position to look after them, it seems to me we must relax this residence requirement and adopt something along the lines I have suggested.
The minister said that some members of the house were advocating pensions of up to $200 per month. One member of the house interjected and said that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) had advocated pensions of $200 per month. This is not correct. In that part of his speech to which reference has already been made by the hon. member for New Westminster, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano was attempting to indicate what the basic retirement income for residents of Canada should be, that is for a man and his wife. He attempts to establish the need for, and the method by which an increase could be tied to the cost of living. He went on to point out that in many instances the breadwinner would have saved sufficient money to provide an income of approximately $90 a month and with the pension of $55 per month going to both persons they would have a basic income of about $200 per month. This is somewhat different, of course, from advocating a straight payment of $200 per month from the federal treasury.
As I say, I am certainly prepared to support this legislation. I think we should get on with it as rapidly as possible. This parliament should then come to grips with measures that are very important, such as the questions that were bandied about during the election campaign as to what the government was going to do about full employment and trade. I think this house should not rise until something concrete has been done about those subjects.
Old Age Security Act


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I was called out of the chamber just when this bill was brought down today. However, when I was speaking to the resolution the other day I asked the minister a definite question. I did so because I knew he would not have the information at his finger-tips. I asked him how many people in receipt of old age security had left Canada in the last little while. He can give it for a year or two years, or for whatever period his figures are. It does not matter how long it is. I should like to know how many actually had their social security pensions withdrawn from them by reason of their going to some other country. I wonder whether he has that information.
My point at the time was that I did not think six months' absence was enough to bring about that result. I have maintained right along that if this old age security is given to one of our citizens by right-and that is the terminology that has been used on both sides of the house in the past-of citizenship provided they have lived here for the required length of time, then they are entitled to it no matter where they may go.
I hold in my hand an article which appeared in the Financial Post of October 5, 1957 and written by one of their writers, namely J. B. McGeachy. In it he points out some interesting observations just along this very line. He says:
Is it merely quibbling to complain because the Canadian system doesn't conform to these models?
Here he is referring to the British pension and the United States pension which are contributory schemes and payable no matter where a citizen may go to live subsequently. He says:
Not as I see it. For one thing, if the Canadian pension is genuinely contributory, if it's therefore "a matter of right" as Mr. Martin used to argue, why isn't it payable to a Canadian over 70 wherever he may be?
Then further on down the page:
The inescapable fact is that the present Canadian system establishes no clear right. What is the payment of $46 a month,-
I may say that this article was written before this bill came down.
-or any other amount, in fact related to? It's related to nothing except the social views, political necessities, financial circumstances and possibly whims of a party trying either to stay in power or dislodge its rival.
There is a point there that is worth considering. Farther on Mr. McGeachy says this:
Mr. Diefenbaker, during this summer's campaign, said that $46 a month wasn't "enough". Enough for what? Nobody knows. There's no answer, official or philosophical.
Then he goes on to attempt to point out that it might be related to the gross national

Old Age Security Act
product. But if it was so related, one objection that has been made to that suggestion is that if the gross national product should fall then the rate of old age security would have to fall. Of course that is something that is perhaps politically unwise. We all know that. We all know that when once you begin to give something in the form of a service, you cannot very well take it back. There may be some point to that consideration.
However, what I rose to point out especially was the situation where people go away because of their condition of health or something of that kind. Why is it not proper for a Canadian citizen who is in receipt of old age security, who has paid in on it over his lifetime,- this is not so today but eventually it will be so -to be allowed to live where he wants to live? What difference does it make? The money may not be spent here but it would not be such an enormous sum. I ask the minister if he would care to answer that question of which I gave him notice some days ago. I know we are not in committee on the bill. Perhaps I overlooked that point. If he wishes to wait until we are in committee, that is all right.


Jay Waldo Monteith: By the way, I gave the
answer in my opening remarks.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise only in order to give the house the few views that I have with respect to this matter. After listening to the various comments and proposals made by members in all quarters of this house, ranging from such things as a cost of living bonus or a bonus based on the gross national product to paying the pensions to people who live in other parts of the world than Canada after they are entitled to receive it, adequate hospital care, adequate housing and so on, to the question of social security legislation for our elderly citizens I think we must take an approach different from that which we have taken in the past.
Ever since the inception of old age pensions-and many hon. members of this house who have been here for some years know this far better than do I-the approach has been on this basis: What can we do which will assist these old age pensioners immediately and which also might be looked upon favourably in the country when it comes time for us to go back to the people and see whether or not they want to return us? I do not say that is done consciously nor do I say that it is the sole consideration which has been given to the old age pension structure. Nevertheless, that appears to be the attitude or the approach that we have used when these changes have been made, namely on a sort of expediency basis. I do not think it is good enough.

Before I progress any further I should like to make a comment about the suggestion as to a cost of living bonus. I know, as do other hon. members, that this suggestion was contained in the comments made during the election campaign by various members sitting on the government side of the house, but quite frankly I am pleased that they dropped it at this time and that it is not contained in the bill. To my way of thinking at the present time, if we were to adopt some sort of cost of living bonus we would be perpetrating a great crime against our old age pensioners. It is true that when the cost of living would go up, it would raise the pension itself, but by so establishing at this time a system of cost of living bonuses we would be in effect saying that the present standard of living of the old age pensioners is good enough and that it is not going to increase any more. It would be in effect saying: "You are not going to get anything better; all you are going to do is to keep up with what you are behind the present cost of living".
Quite frankly, I am of the opinion that the approach we must make to the social security legislation for old age pensioners

and we are dealing with them in this bill-must be changed. We must take some cognizance of the problems and make some effort to solve them. Whether it be done through having a study by departmental officers, a commission, or a committee, it is immaterial. We must take continual looks at these questions of health care, hospital care, adequate housing, changes in the actual amount of the pension, residence qualifications, whether you are out of Canada, and all of the many other good, sound proposals which have been made.
I hope the government will keep that thought in mind if they have not considered it already and that by doing so and establishing our approach on that basis we can generate a better feeling in society towards our elder citizens and can give them the fullest possible means for an adequate way of life in their later years.


Mr. Jacob Schulz (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say I am very much in favour of the bill under discussion. I support it mainly because it is an instrument designed to bring about a greater measure of recognition and justice for our senior citizens who have made this country great and will save many from privation and starvation.
The proposed amendments in the Old Age Security Act included in this legislation will give greater consideration to the needs of that group of Canadians which have long been neglected and which deserve better treatment from those who are the direct and indirect beneficiaries of their valuable work

and effort. It will be of some benefit to those who have as the pioneers of Canada been performing their duties under most primitive and daring conditions, making this country what it is today. It will assist those who for one reason or another could not reap the benefit of their labour. It will be helpful to those who through no fault of their own have not been able to help themselves, and it will at least compensate to some extent those who have lost the greater part of their savings through inflation.
I have mentioned these different categories which will benefit from this increase in pension for the enlightenment of those who are still confused in their own minds in that they regard any social legislation or improvement thereof as a major disaster. I repeat, those who for some unknown reason prefer individualism to Social order, and those who for selfish reasons have through manoeuvring our entire economy into a chaotic condition created inflation to the point where the buying power of the Canadian dollar is now worth less than 50 cents. This is the reason why we are here today to pass laws for increasing old age pensions to make up for these losses.
What is inflation? I think at this time we should ask ourselves this question. According to the Oxford dictionary inflation, applied to commerce and economics means "increase beyond proper limits for instance of prices". In more simple terms, if anything could be more simple, it means that inflation is created by unreasonable rising of prices from which some sections of the community benefits at the expense of the rest. The section to which our old people belong is one of those which lost the most through inflation, for rising prices mean an automatic decline in the buying dollar of the dollar; it means that many of these people who have been indirectly robbed of more than half their savings, which in many cases represented the greater part of their life's work, will once again have to be provided for by emergency measures.
It was a similar situation the other day when we were dealing with the case of the farmers. The hon. members of this house are called upon to pass laws compensating these people for their losses-these people who work hardest, saved the most and have lost the most-these are the people who followed the practice dictated by the age-old wisdom of putting aside a few dollars for a rainy day and have been caught in the squeeze between rising costs and falling value of our currency. The unbalanced condition created by inflation has reduced
Old Age Security Act
the purchasing power of their accumulated savings to less than half its original value. Many of these people have been reduced because of the dwindling value of the dollar to the point where they have become permanent wards of the government.
Most of these people were solid and thrifty citizens and did not wish to pass their remaining years in such a condition. They purchased war bonds and life insurance, contributed to pension funds and accumulated savings accounts only to find that a dollar saved in 1939 has lost half its value. They find that because of the almost 4 per cent increase in consumer prices in the last 12 months their dollars invested in government savings bonds a year ago have not brought in sufficient interest to cover the depreciation of their money. They find their self denial in accumulating savings to provide a nestegg for their old age has been in vain. They find that their total reward for their efforts is ultimate bankruptcy plus old age pensions; they find the whole process is a shameful delusion.
Even those who through their power of collective bargaining were able to keep pace with the rising cost of living have become victims of the ever-rising price spiral at their retirement. Without any means of raising their income, they stand helplessly by, watching inflation taking bigger and bigger bites out of their fixed income. Their pension cheques which could buy goods for $100 in 1949 are worth today only $83, or a loss of 17 per cent in seven years. What they could buy for a dollar a year ago now costs $1.04. This is the result of the economic crime we call inflation.
We are now called upon to save some of its victims by increased social legislation. There are to be three changes made in our old age security laws to ease the crippling effect of this inflation. First, to raise old age pensions from $46 to $55 monthly; second, to cut the period of Canadian residence required to qualify from 20 years to 10 years and, third, to lengthen from three to six months the permissible period of absence from the country in any year without loss of pension.
Adding these increased social measures to the $6 increase in old age security pensions provided for by the former administration will reimburse to a considerable extent those whose income has been largely wiped out even though it is not enough to provide very much for future losses, in which case the pension should be raised to $60 or more. One must admit that taking into account the fact that this increase is being granted by the two older parties it

Old Age Security Act
can be regarded as a somewhat remarkable achievement. They really deserve credit for this performance.
Thanks to what H. B. Mayo describes as the conscience of the country, that is the C.C.F. party, the old line parties have gradually been forced to accept the principle of social assistance to the needy. The party's founder, Mr. Woods worth, was the man who laid the cornerstone of Canadian social thinking. Since the party was formed in 1932 it has created a social consciousness in this country that no one can escape, no matter how crusty he may be. Even the old party politicians are becoming bewildered by public opinion and confused in their own thinking to the point where they are now trying to outdo each other in helping socialism, as the Ottawa Journal puts it, to come in through the back door.
Of course, there is actually nothing wrong with socialism if you look at it the right way, and as long as it is democratic. Socialism comes from the word social, and most people want to be social. Webster's dictionary defines it as a "theoretical contract by which men obtain true freedom to substitute a state of law for a state of individualism."
This makes it quite understandable why the two old parties are so anxious to comply with one of its major principles. It was interesting and at the same time amusing to listen to the former minister of national health and welfare arguing with the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) the other day over the matter of who is bringing in the most social legislation. But what I cannot understand is this: if they want to do it, why do they not join the C.C.F. where they could do it through the front door instead of the back? The establishment of adequate social laws has always been one of our major policy planks. But how far will it go?
Unless the government is willing to do something formidable to stop this curse of inflation which has impoverished whole sections of our society, something of this sort will have to be done to tie them to the constantly increasing cost of living. In the Financial Post of August 3 it was clearly pointed out that not only pensioners, annuitants and retired industrial wage-earners are taking a sharp drop in real income, but more and more wage and salary recipients are feeling the pinch of rising prices, and feeling it despite pay increases. Especially in those industries where white-collar workers predominate, wages tend to lag behind prices.

It is often said that increasing wages create inflation. But on page 21 of the same issue of the Financial Post, appears this statement:
Salaried workers and wage earners in service industries are either achieving small real gains or losing ground in real terms. Average weekly wages in some industries are lower in both dollar terms and real terms.
In a table contained in the September 21 issue it is clearly shown that increases in labour income are losing pace and have declined from 3.5 per cent in the first quarter of 1956 to 1.5 per cent in the first quarter of 1957, a drop of 2 per cent in one year. Who is responsible for this condition? Where is this prosperity so many people talk about? In the Financial Post of August 30 appears this statement:
In industry, all major groups have chalked up impressive increases, not only in dollar terms but also in terms of what those dollars can buy.
This is the unbalanced condition existing in our country created by inflation. On one side, rising prosperity and, on the other, decreasing income. This discriminatory process of one group being allowed for years to exploit another group has now progressed to the point where emergency laws and social legislation must be employed to save the losers from poverty and starvation. If it had not been for this economic injustice that is allowed to go on without being checked year after year we would not need to use the Canadian taxpayer's money to compensate for the losses by increased pensions.
Unless the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) has the patriotic courage to tackle inflation, which has become the core of our trouble, and resist the political pressure of selfish class interest, the increase in pension will not be of too much assistance to our senior citizens. This monster of inflation will eat it up from one end almost as fast as we can feed it with temporary stop-gap measures from the other end. If nothing more fundamental is done it will not take too long until those who depend solely on pensions will be behind again.
Those who enriched themselves in this manner will obviously resist any attempt to stop or even slow down inflation. They accuse any person or political party that attempts to stem the tide of rising prices of trying to create a recession or even a depression. They do not seem to know that any inflation, if not stopped, is automatically followed by a depression. Some of them are naive enough to suggest that a little inflation is quite all right.
When some years ago, former president Harry Truman was asked what he thought

about having just a little inflation, he replied: "You cannot have just a little inflation. Having a little inflation is like being a little pregnant."
The United States authorities as a whole seem to be much more concerned about the dangers of inflation. Apparently they have learned from the past that while people are slow in losing their confidence in money, once it is lost it is equally difficult to restore it. They seem to remember much more vividly the episode of the thirties than those who are responsible for maintaining respect for the measure of value of our own currency. This is proven by the fact that since 1947 the purchasing power of the United States dollar has declined by 20 per cent while ours has lost 29 per cent in the same time.
At the beginning of the year President Eisenhower asked congress to appoint a citizens' commission to study the nation's economy to determine where their financial system is out of date and how it can be made equal to its task.
What have our governments done? The Liberal government instituted what is called a tight money policy, consisting of restricted credit accompanied by high interest. That can perhaps be compared with putting a block of ice on a thermometer. It will lower the temperature reading, but does not end the heat wave.
The present government apparently decided to reverse this policy. Shortly after its election, the Minister of Finance announced that the tight money policy must go. I thought there could be no doubt that high interest rates would go with it but instead since that time interest rates went up by one-quarter of one per cent, and this move, to my surprise, was initiated by the Bank of Canada which is a government institution.
Mr. Speaker, the basic truth of this whole matter is that our government must either squarely face the problem of inflation and accept the policies necessary to check and curtail it, or else it will produce what former president Hoover called a hair-raising depression. It should be obvious by now to every thinking person that this merry-go-round of rising prices and increasing wages must stop. Merry-go-rounds are for children and not for intelligent adults.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, representing as I do a Vancouver riding, the question of increased benefits under the Old Age Security Act and the Old Age Assistance Act, is of particular concern to me. It is an undisputed fact that British Columbia has the greatest percentage of
Old Age Security Act
senior citizens of any province in the dominion and most of these citizens live on the west coast and Vancouver island because of a mild and temperate climate more suited to their years. These senior citizens pioneered this country, built up its wealth, raised and educated their families and made Canada the great nation it is today. The pension they receive is theirs by right of hard work and by right of their contributions through the various taxes levied to help defray the cost of these pensions.
The ordinary wage earner with a family finds it almost impossible to put away any money to take care of his old age. Such savings as were made during his best working period are today paid off in depreciated dollars. The senior citizen who has given his children a good education, bought a house however small, and perhaps saved a few dollars as well, has done an exceptional job for himself and this country.
The first amendment to this bill is to increase the pension to $55 a month. I was most interested when the minister informed the house the other day that this represents a 37.5 per cent increase over the $40 level which prevailed at the first of this year while by comparison the cost of living index has risen only 23 per cent since 1949 and only 5 per cent since 1952 when old age security payments commenced. At the time of the commencement of old age security payments in 1952 the gross national product was $23J billion while in 1957 it is estimated at $30.8 billion or an increase of 32.4 per cent compared to the pension increase of 37.5 per cent.
However, in assessing the value of this increase it is necessary to consider the other welfare measures which are part and parcel of the whole welfare program we are considering at this time, namely increases in payments under the Old Age Security Act, at an estimated cost of $13 million per year divided equally between the federal treasury and the provinces; increases in pensions for the blind at an estimated cost of $1 million to the federal treasury; and increases in pensions for disabled persons at a cost of $4.6 million divided evenly between the federal and provincial governments.
I wish to quote from the statement of the minister when he introduced the resolution on October 24 as reported at page 385 of Hansard of that date. I think the minister put it in a nutshell when he said:
May I add a further word, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the level of benefit that is now proposed, namely, $55 per month. We make no extravagant claims with respect to this benefit. We do not say that it is the final or perfect solution, or that there is any magic rightness about this particular

Old Age Security Act
amount. We make no extravagant claims as to the generosity of the amount we are now proposing. It is my view, rather, that we should try to measure what we are doing here not in terms of generosity but in terms of justice.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that this bill does measure what we are doing here in terms of justice. Considering all of this, I believe the increase proposed is a fair and reasonable one as it takes into account the increase in the cost of living and adds an increase over and above this for good measure. The pension has not been tied to the cost of living which could conceivably result in cutting pensions if the cost of living went down, but I am confident the government will be reviewing the pension periodically if living costs continue to rise.
I am certain that nearly all hon. members are in agreement with the second amendment which reduces the basic residence requirement from 20 to 10 years.
I would now like to say a few words about our pension arrangement as compared to plans in operation in the United States. The United States plan is carried without government assistance by means of contributions from both employer and employee. The benefits given are greater than those supplied by the Canadian old age security plan. However, it has the weakness that it helps only those workers employed in factories or other places who can be reached by the principle of deduction from pay cheques. It might well be that in the future some national scheme on a fully contributory basis could be evolved which would reach these people and provide them with a supplementary pension.
The opposition has been pointing out the increased cost to the Canadian taxpayer of this and other measures. Actually, Mr. Speaker, these measures are not inflationary in the slightest degree. Every dollar received under the provisions of this act will be spent immediately on food, shelter and other living requirements.
Hon. members speaking previously during the resolution stage have pointed out that there are many instances of pensioners not receiving any benefit from increases in their pension due to automatic increases in rental or subsistence charges leaving the pensioner with not one cent more for himself. I believe that through the administrative staff handling pensions and by pensioners reporting back such happenings publicity could be given or other steps taken which might curtail this practice.
The third amendment increases from three to six months the length of permissible temporary absence of pensioners from Canada. I think all hon. members will agree this is a

step in the right direction. It might be that later on the minister would consider setting up reciprocal regulations with other countries, particularly in respect to commonwealth countries, as the spending of pension cheques in these countries would be an aid in helping to correct the present imbalance in our foreign trade.
In conclusion, I believe that the government will have to give the lead to industry to see that first class workers are not retired both prematurely and arbitrarily. The effect of this premature retirement on the worker who continues to be fit in both mind and body and who wishes to carry on working at a job he is quite capable of doing is frequently the worst imaginable, but the social circumstances are serious too and likely to become more so. The average life span is progressively lengthening with each decade and, unless we revise our ideas, before long the rapidly growing numbers of older people who are compelled in one way or another to become dependents will constitute an enormous burden on the working population.
There is a real fear in the heart of all when they reach the middle forties or fifties that if they lose their jobs they may not be able to get another one because, and only because, of their age. We must take the leadership in educating all employers in Canada to the end that our older workers are as freely accepted as our younger workers.
The measure before us is a just one and is supported by Canadians in all age groups. The government is to be commended on the speed with which it is acting. It is doing more and in less time than any previous government has ever done.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. A. B. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself has said that our old age security legislation should provide an amount which, in his words, would meet the needs of our senior citizens. In listening to the debate in the house, both at the resolution stage and at this stage of the bill, I have not heard any member, even a member from the government benches, suggest that $55 a month will meet the needs of our senior citizens. I have not heard a member from the government benches suggest that that amount, even with the provincial bonus, will meet the needs of our senior citizens.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that those needs could be met, certainly more adequately, if our old age pension legislation rested upon a fair, even-handed and just financial basis. The present old age security legislation, as we have been told many times, draws its finances from three sources, the 2 per cent of the sales tax, the 2 per cent of corporate taxation and the 2 per cent applied against income tax. It is the last 2 per cent that I want to draw attention to for the moment.
This 2 per cent is a tax applied only to the first $3,000 of taxable income. As we all know, this has meant that in the last few years a most inequitable system of taxation in that regard has existed in this country. It has meant that a man with a taxable income of $3,000 a year pays $60 into the old age security fund and a man with a taxable income of $50,000 a year pays only $60 into the fund. Or, to take an extreme case, a man with a taxable income of $100,000 per year still only pays $60 into the fund.
It is axiomatic that fair taxation laws should bear most heavily on those best able to pay. Taxation should be based upon ability to pay and it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the problem of financing adequate old age security would not be nearly as great as it is if only, as I say, the government would base the pension fund upon adequate and equitable taxation principles.
There is another source from which this fund should be supplemented at the present time and that, of course, is the field of capital gains, the field from which the great unearned fortunes that are being made in Canada today spring. They do not spring for the most part from earned income or salary, they spring from capital gains in speculative ventures, often a gain which results far more from the general improvement of values in the community than from any effort made by the individual concerned. Yet this vast source of fortunes is utterly untaxed in Canada today.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that before too long the government will consider bringing down a budget. As a freshman member of parliament I am particularly concerned to try to see the total picture, to try to see how the $95 million or so that we are proposing to add to the pension fund liabilities fits into the total picture of the revenue of Canada and the picture of how that revenue could be supplemented. I hope that will be done, together with a review of the industrial and business picture across Canada today.
But I suggest that even without seeing that total picture, which can only be presented
Old Age Security Act
in a budget, there are rich fields of taxation which should be taxed to help to provide adequate security for our senior citizens and, as I said at the beginning, I do not think that anyone can pretend that we are doing that by this legislation. So I say that the iniquitous 2 per cent application against income tax which stops at $60 and which hits the relatively poor man just as hard as it hits the rich man must be done away with. I say we must tax capital gains. I say if you evolve a taxation system which is fair, just, equitable and evenhanded you will have the funds to provide adequate old age security for our senior citizens, certainly at a basic level of $75 to which should be added the provincial bonuses.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief word to say. I think the provision to grant six months absence in a year is very generous. The pensioner will be able to spend half his remaining life outside of Canada. Let us take a man who has not been long married and has a young family. We will say that he has come to Canada from one of the best countries in the world, Ireland. He does not see any future for himself or his family in Ireland and he says to himself, "I think I will go to the best country in the world, Canada." Out to Canada	he	comes.	What does	hefind in Canada?	He finds	all the work	he
can do and he is not only able to provide for himself and his family but is able to educate his children and save a little.
When he becomes 70 years of age he gets $46 or $55 or, as one hon. member would have it, $75. Some people like my hon. friend here would say that he should be allowed to go where he likes. I do not think he should	be	allowed	to go where	helikes. I think	he	should	be grateful	to
Canada and it is a sin of ingratitude if he wants to go back to Ireland and live there. If he wanted to go back to Ireland so badly he should have stayed there in the first place.
I think the minister certainly has been very generous in extending the period of absence to six months. When I sat on the other side of the house, Mr. Speaker, I found that no matter how generous the government was there were always those who wanted twice as much. If the minister will open his eyes he will see that situation has not changed. Some hon. members are saying that he should not have made the period six months, that he should have made it for life. I do not think he should. If a man needs a particular climate he does not have to go outside of Canada. We have all kinds of climate in Canada from the Atlantic to the

Old Age Security Act
Pacific. In Victoria you have a mild climate. In Calgary or the Rocky mountains around Banff there are the chinook winds which bring about a change in climate. If you go to Fort William you will find the climate always changing and you will get the best hockey in the world which enables you to forget yourself.
I think if a man is grateful he will want to live in the place that has treated him generously. Instead of making the period six months, I think the minister should have made it less but he can go to sleep and feel that even if he had made it twelve months there would be those who would want to make it twenty-four.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that a great deal has been said about the Old Age Security Act and the amendments that are proposed. I think there has been far too much said about certain promises that were made prior to the election. In the Medicine Hat constituency the Conservative candidate, to my knowledge at least, never mentioned old age pension or old age security or old age assistance or anything of that kind. All he talked about was Diefenbaker, so much so that I wondered if there was still a Conservative party or whether they had changed their name to the Diefenbaker party.


George Carlyle Marler: They did in some parts of the country.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Be that as it may, the Liberal candidate did not make any specific promises either. He made several references to common sense being used in legislation. That was all well and good, except that when I went to visit some of the old age pensioners, some of those who had to live on what they received in the form of old age security payments, it did not make sense to me that in a country such as Canada which is able to produce so abundantly all those things that are necessary for a good life, they should have to try to get along on $46 per month.
I should like to add my support to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) to the effect that an increase in old age security payments would put money into the hands of people who would buy consumer goods. In that regard I should like to say that in no part of Canada do we find any shortage of consumer goods. For that reason it would appear to me that any money put into the hands of these people would not increase inflationary pressures.
During the course of this debate several members have mentioned the fact that we should try to eliminate politics from old age security and old age assistance of any kind.

I think we may as well be realistic and face the facts. Politics and political manoeuvring are part and parcel of our democratic system and so long as there are candidates representing different parties going to the people and asking for a mandate, they are certainly going to bring up matters of such importance as old age pensions or any other kind of social security. As long as we have human nature with which to deal in political elections I am certain we are going to have old age security and all social security measures brought into election campaigns, no matter how hard we strive to keep them out.
There have been suggestions also that there should be an escalator clause attached to the scale of payments under old age security legislation. I certainly go along with this idea, although I am not quite satisfied in my own mind as to whether that should be tied to the cost of living or whether it should be tied to the gross national product or to what it should be tied. In looking at this picture we must realize that if we are to be a progressive nation, then the standard of living must rise. If we tied the payments to the cost of living that would not, in fact, take care of an increased standard of living as our country may be able to provide it. While I do not have the exact formula for doing this, my feeling is we should be able to study the matter and then set up some kind of plan whereby we can make increases as the nation is able to produce the goods and services necessary to increase the standard of living.
So, Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude by saying I support the amendment as an instalment, as a step in the right direction. I do not believe they are adequate. We in the Social Credit party advocated $60 per month basic pension. While that was considered the minimum and $55 of course falls even short of that, we cannot but support the measure because it is at least a recognition of the fact there is a need for an increase, and it is an instalment. Until such time as we can arrive at a formula that will adjust old age pensions without an act of parliament and maintain what we believe to be an acceptable standard of living for our old age pensioners, I think I will go along with the amendments as they have been stated.


Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my first remark would be that the more I listen to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) the more I am certain he is misplaced and ought to be sitting on this side of the house rather than on that. We can all, of course, agree with his sentiments and they were well expressed indeed. It will

certainly come as no surprise to hon. members that I am going to support this measure. I have not been prompted to make these remarks because of the dinner recess, but rather because of the comments of one member of the C.C.F. party who suggested that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) and the former minister of that same department were gradually drifting towards a state of socialism, so much so that they might just as well become socialists. I do not think I would be remiss if I were to state to that gentleman, and to the gentleman who is doing his best to interject, that that is far from the fact although perhaps that hon. gentleman would wish that situation could occur immediately.
The hon. member for St. Antoine-West-mount (Mr. Marler) interjected some comments with which he may be surprised to find I am in some measure of agreement. He suggested or inferred that we are today looking at some substantial costs resulting from what has become, in the last half decade, a very enlarged welfare state. Perhaps one conclusion we could draw from his comments is that in looking towards the future and the extent of the social benefits in any form that any administration, regardless of the political party that may be responsible for it, can provide, consideration must be given to just how far this state can go without social welfare legislation becoming a big drain on the general economy of the country.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me very quickly say that before we determine where we shall put a stop, if a stop is required, the stop should not be made at the expense of those who are least able to fend for themselves. The point that I make is that no one in this house has registered a protest, and I think rightly so, to this measure. Most hon. members have, if nothing else, indicated support to a degree based on the necessity or urgency of the measure. This is, of course, introduced as an urgent measure. I say, therefore, regardless of how we look in the future at the measures that come before this parliament, we must ask ourselves who, in regard to this legislation, can defend themselves or look after themselves best and who cannot. I believe those who have contributed to this country, be they senior citizens or veterans, have a prior claim; and that is exactly what this government is recognizing in this measure.
I think perhaps it is a regrettable commentary on our situation today that we accept the fact that we enjoy a fairly high level of prosperity and yet we see, in this and every other community, a situation in which many of our elderly citizens are being
Old Age Security Act
obliged to put up with the most distressed conditions. I think we all ask ourselves how this can occur when so many are enjoying the prosperity to which I have made reference.
I therefore say that legislators, regardless of who they may be in the future, should- as this government are doing today-give their consideration to the urgent demands of those who need it most. But certainly they must recognize the fact that other measures of social security must at some point be fully conditional on the ability of the economy in which we live to meet and be able to pay for them. I agree with the hon. member who said that we in effect must be able to recognize the fact that, unfortunately, we cannot lift off the tree all the funds that are necessary to meet these benefits that we think should be introduced in this house. But what I say-and I think this is where we differ-is that this is one of those measures which, judging by the hundreds, yes, literally thousands of letters which members have received, recognizes the seriousness of the plight of our elderly citizens who, as I say, are not enjoying anything of the benefits of our prosperity but who nevertheless suffer all the disadvantages of an inflated economy.
I believe this government should be congratulated for recognizing the urgent demand of these people who have contributed so much in the past; and because of this fact they have placed at the head of their legislative program perhaps not the most important bill that we should see but certainly one of the most urgent.


Mr. Arthur Maloney (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a brief word about the effect of this legislation on immigrants to this country. I have in mind, first of all, the principle of the bill which reduces to ten years the residence requirement that existed under the earlier legislation which is now being amended. I am thinking of the beneficial effect it will have on immigrants who have come here in recent years from the British isles and countries of continental Europe. I must confess that I always found it difficult-I know that my difficulties in that respect were shared by all of the hon. members on the government side of the house-to understand how it was that our predecessors in office were unable to accede to the recommendations of our party, then in opposition, made over long periods of time to do what this legislation now brings about.
From the figures that were mentioned by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) I understand that approximately 5,000 of the immigrant population

Old Age Security Act
will stand immediately to benefit. In other words, immigrants who are now 70 years of age and who came to this country during the years from 1938 to 1948 will enjoy a benefit of which they would have been deprived for another 10 years under the legislation in its unamended form. It is true that these people did not contribute to the production or the revenue of our nation except for a brief period of time, but on the other hand, neither were they the recipients of some of the costly benefits in the gift of our nation to bestow.
I have in mind one specific case in which the practical benefits which will flow from this legislation can easily be illustrated. I am thinking of a professional man from one of the countries of eastern Europe. I shall not identify him more specifically for fear of some embarrassment that he might be occasioned. He was a lawyer and in his own country he occupied a position of eminence and prestige in his profession. He enjoyed the high regard and respect of all the citizens of his country as a famed lawyer. However, because of his hostility to communism and inability to submit to its slave-like domination, he came to this country. Here he was required to live in simplicity and frugality, in circumstances far different to those to which he had been accustomed in the land of his birth. Presently he is engaged in employment which for him, because of his age, is physically exacting and indeed soon becoming impossible of performance. This citizen to whom I refer has just attained the 70th year of his life. He will be resident in this country ten years about the summertime of 1958. He is but one of many who will stand to enjoy the charitable and merciful benefits of the amendment.
In respect of one other aspect of the legislation, however, I should like to be permitted to advance merely a suggestion for the consideration of the minister and the government. It is in reference to the people referred to by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) a moment ago namely those who choose to leave the country and who still wish to enjoy the benefits of this legislation. There are many in that category who came to this country early in their lives and who, over a period of many years, have contributed heavily to the production and the revenue of our nation. The people of whom I am thinking at the moment when I make these remarks are largely people who come from the British isles, of whom there are many in my constituency.
They came here at an early age, have engaged in many and varied occupations in this country and, as I say, have contributed

heavily to its advancement. Some of them have been here as long as 30 years and some as many as 40 years. However, their memories of the lands of St. Patrick and St. George or the lands of the shamrock and the heather are still green and they would like to go back in the declining years of their lives in order to pass the remainder of their days in those surroundings. It occurs to me that in the case of persons who fall within that particular category some exception to the present legislation might possibly be made. As I say, they have contributed heavily to the country's production and revenue. I realize that the proposal may have broader ramifications and must be considered in the light of those ramifications, but I respectfully hold out that suggestion for consideration by the minister and the government.


Louis Harrington Lewry: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my support to those in this house who have expressed themselves as being in favour of the increase in the old age pensions. However, I suggest the proposals fall far short of the promises made during the election campaign when those candidates now on the government side said that the Conservatives would, if elected, consider extending the present old age pension system by the addition of an insurance scheme similar to that in use in the United States. That is not the purpose of the bill introduced during this session.
While we do suggest that it is still not enough it is a step toward more security for the old age pensioner. Proven statements of welfare organization issued over a year ago showed that an income of $75 per month was the bare minimum for the existence of a single person. May I say that in Saskatchewan the C.C.F. government is taking up the slack of inadequate federal old age pensions by providing supplemental allowances, hospitalization and medical services. In addition, Saskatchewan provides nursing home care to the chronically ill in provincially operated nursing homes. Over 40 old age pension home projects are now in operation in Saskatchewan for the senior citizens of our province.
Prior to the 1957 federal election campaign the senior citizens of Canada were a forgotten people. They had no means to increase their meagre pensions in the twilight of their lives despite their hard work and contributions over a period of many years. I heard one speaker in this chamber a few days ago suggest that the provincial governments are not paying their share toward the care of needy old age pensioners. Until there is a change in the fiscal policy which now

exists whereby the federal government takes 75 cents out of every tax dollar I suggest no provincial administration can do all they would like to do on behalf of their elderly people. With the remaining 25 cents out of every tax dollar paid in taxes having to be distributed between 4,600 municipal governments and 10 provincial governments it leaves much to be desired, but I suggest tonight that we get on with this legislation so that our old age pensioners will at least have the feel of a few extra dollars before the cost of living catches up with them. We have already heard that landlords have increased the rents of the old age pensioners to be effective when this increase is paid. Until our economy is planned for the benefit of the people of Canada we will continue to have this unequal condition. Let us pass this legislation immediately and with it extend our best wishes to the old age pensioners for another larger increase after the next election. We could say now that it is not much but it is the spirit that counts.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I am very much in favour of this legislation which permits the government to make increased payments to our senior citizens and I want to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) for bringing in this bill. I regret, however, that he has not included an escalator clause.
There is one other matter I would like to raise in connection with this bill. In my area and several other areas in Canada I understand it is the practice to reduce the industrial pension payments by the amount of the old age pension when the pensioner reaches 70 years of age. Up to a few months ago this amount was $40, it is now $46 and I presume it will be $55. Where this practice is in vogue these increased payments will help industry in full where the plans are not contributory and in part where the plans are contributory. Most of such increased payments will help industry; this means that the old age pensioners will not receive one cent more than they did before, in cases where these deductions are made. I repeat, they will receive no more than when the old age pension was $40 a month. I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he has taken any steps to provide that these increased payments should be passed on to the pensioners.


Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, as a member from Newfoundland I feel I would indeed be remiss if I did not speak to this bill. Social security and particularly old age pensions played a very important role in bringing Newfoundland into confederation. As a matter of fact one should
Old Age Security Act
almost say that this was the bait that caught the fish. Social security and the benefits accruing therefrom were held over the people of Newfoundland and they were told "If you come into confederation this is what you will get."
I am of a new generation and I believe there is more in Canadian citizenship than social security. There are however many people in Newfoundland today who believe that the only benefit to be derived from being called Canadian is the receipt of family allowances and old age pensions. This is certainly a horrible situation. I feel that anything I would say in favour of this legislation would be superfluous as obviously it is not going to be opposed but I feel secure in the knowledge that the government I support is indeed keeping faith with the people.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a great many remarks coming from your left and far right giving qualified support to this amending legislation. I do not think that simply because we sit to your right we should regard this solely as an achievement; I would much prefer tonight to think that this is a challenge and that starting from here we can go on to the point where we feel we have attended to all the needs of our senior citizens. I remember the remarks of the hon. member from Calgary South (Mr. Smith) who very forcibly pointed out that at any particular stage in the development of a country there is just so much which can go into this type of legislation. We have a serious problem if a great part of the gross national product is used in certain respects and in such a manner that it will will not produce and create further employment; then of course it is possible that the well of taxation will dry up.
I cannot help but recall being challenged on occasion at public meetings during the last eight or 10 months and being asked whether this party would approve pensions anywhere from $75 to $100 I think the most sane answer to this question is simply to say "If you were in a position where you might some day have the responsibility for fixing the amount then such estimates as are given and thrown across the floor at public meetings are the type which would have to be regarded in a very light manner."
I think that as matters now stand this legislation is doing as much in a cash way as this country can handle. I think, however that there are other things which are being done for senior citizens and other things which can be done in the future which will to a great extent alleviate some of their problems, particularly in these times of

Old Age Security Act
comparative inflation. I am thinking that perhaps as we look to the future we might give more serious thought to the problems of housing accommodation.
What can be done in this matter has been brought very forcibly before me as I have seen the efforts in this direction in my own constituency. There I saw the co-operation of three levels of government-municipal, provincial and federal-providing class A1 accommodation for senior citizens at prices they can afford to pay. I think that in future we might direct our efforts along these lines to a greater extent.
In metropolitan Toronto, as a matter of fact, I think we have to pay great credit to the present hon. member for York South (Mr. Beech) who while he was reeve of York township led the way in the construction of the Beech Hall apartments in Weston; it was at municipal level that the leadership came from. We have an example of the same type of construction in York West. There we have the West Acres apartment project. This unit was constructed by the municipality of metropolitan Toronto at an approximate cost of $800,000. It consists of eight buildings of 16 suites each, making a total of 128 suites of which 64 are bachelor suites, a total capacity of 192 elderly people.
The important part about this is the rents that are charged for this type of accommodation. The bachelor suites are $33.50 plus hydro, $1.50, and water, 75 cents, making a total of $35.75 per month, and I would like to point out that equivalent accommodation in apartments in other areas immediately adjacent to this cost between $115 and $120 a month. The double suites are $40 plus hydro, $1.50, and water 75 cents, a total of $42.50 a month.
This indicates, in this case at least, that two can live as cheaply as one. The first unit in this building project was opened on February 1 this year, and the last unit was occupied in May. There is room on this site for the possible expansion of this project by another eight buildings. A similar unit is, I understand, under construction in North York and it is expected it will be ready for occupancy, in part at least, in 1958. This building will cost in excess of $900,000 and will be identical with the unit in my own constituency except that the rents are to be $40 for bachelor suites and $50 for double apartments, including hydro and water. At present in metropolitan Toronto we have a waiting list of approximately 1200 people for these apartments.
I should like to illustrate the method of financing the West Acres project. The province of Ontario contributed $64,000 on the
TMr. Hamilton (York West).]
basis of $500 per suite under the Elderly Persons' Housing Aid Act. Metropolitan Toronto contributed $170,000 as a long-term loan with interest only payable; Central Mortgage and Housing contributed $618,350 on a 50-year mortgage arrangement. It should be pointed out here with regard to this type of assistance for elderly persons that not one cent is chargeable to the federal administration. This money is totally repayable with interest. The province makes an outright gift towards the construction; the municipality lends the money and retains at the end of the period title to the property.
In times when there are terrific demands on the government here is a method by which we can improve the lot of elderly persons and at the same time improve prospects in the building trades. I do not think the kind of co-operation I have described could be devoted to any better purpose than this. As a matter of fact I believe that with the new attitude which is being exhibited to the provinces by the government we can expect that this is a type of co-operation which, in the net result, will produce a great deal more actual comfort for our senior citizens than probably any long arguments about this legislation tonight.
I would like to say in closing that no matter whether we sit on this side of the house or the other, let us take tonight as a starting point, let us not look to the past. Let us take credit for this as an achievement but at the same time let us regard it as a challenge.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: If the
remarks we have heard, Mr. Speaker, were an indication that the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) and his party are going to recommend that something further be done for the old age pensioners in the form of housing developments which will take their income into consideration, then we will indeed be looking to the future rather than to the past. But as I have listened to the various comments which have been made about the government's proposal and the various rates of pension which have been discussed I believe that the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) was probably quite correct when he said we were running a bingo in this regard.
Before the last election took place many years had gone by during which the old age pensioner had not been well taken care of. If the rate was not a fair one, we should have been doing something about it in those years before the $6 increase was finally granted at election time. Since that was done the cost of living has again risen. It

has continued to rise, and now we are offering the old age pensioner $55. I suggest that $55 is not sufficient to bring the pension up to the standard of living which he had in 1949 when the $40 pension was in force, and I think the amount of $75 which we regard as a suitable rate should be justified.
In recommending any increase to the old age pension I think we must develop a means by which the rate can be tied in with the cost which the pensioner has to bear, and one of the ways in which he could do that could be found in the method of financing the pensions.
We have a limitation of 2 per cent with a maximum rate of $60 making this a contributory type of pension, to an extent, and I can see no justification, and I do not think the Canadian people can see any justification, when we reach that stage of $60 why the people who have the money to pay income tax no longer have to contribute any more than the $60. So I think we have been amiss when we have not made the suggestion that we take that little bit off and make it truly contributory. Those who are more able to pay should be allowed to do so.
If we have a pension plan which we have agreed is at least partially contributory it is obvious that the contributions have been made by our senior citizens who have produced the wealth of the nation and they should have some say about what they do with the small percentage of that wealth which we give them in the form of old age pensions and old age assistance. This being the case, I say that we cannot limit these people in terms of telling them where to live and what to do with their pension.
If an aged parent wishes to take up residence with his child in another country because he has no other close connection in Canada then he should be free to do so because of the right he has established by contributing to his pension. I think we should eliminate the requirement under which people must periodically return to Canada, to check in as it were, and reestablish residence here in order to continue receiving the old age pension. I believe they establish their residence in Canada during the years they live here and build up their pensions.
There are three points in this legislation, as I see it, and I am in complete agreement with the third which reduces the residence qualification for participation in the old age pension plan.
I would think the Canadian people are going to have to and will take a look at the financing of the pension plan. There is no reason at all to believe that the cost of
Old Age Security Act
living is not going to continue to climb. We have heard no solutions from the government with regard to inflation and monetary problems in general and, as was mentioned by the previous speaker, we have heard very little from the government as to what is being done to meet the housing problem. I am glad to have heard what was said this evening because I know in my own community in Ontario the minute this pension is increased every dime of it and in some cases more is taken off for rent, food, drugs and the other commodities the pensioner has to buy.
In my constituency we have a home for aged people run on a cost basis by a church as a non-profit organization. The pension is so low that the municipality must pay $15 in addition to the pension for the inmates of the home who cannot receive financial assistance from their children, relatives or friends. In the light of the constant increase in the cost of living the increase we are now providing will be eaten up in the way the increases granted in the past have been.
It is my opinion that we have an obligation to our senior citizens to closely scrutinize the financing of our old age pension plan with a view to bringing it into line with the cost of living and through the insertion of an escalator clause or by some other means providing for increases proportionate to the increase in the cost of living so that we will not have to wait until an election is held before the old age pensioner is given a pension adequate to meet his needs.


Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a word or two with regard to Bill No. 19. Unlike hon. members in the official opposition I can express my happiness about this legislation with considerable consistency because ever since coming into this house in 1953 I have advocated increases in old age pensions. On the other hand, my hon. friends in the opposition are being most inconsistent in expressing their views. I gather from their comments that they are going to support this bill but when they formed the government and were in a position to bring in these increases all they did was bring in an increase equivalent to 20 cents a day for old age pensioners. They seem to be full of criticism now which is of course their right and duty in the opposition but it is not exactly constructive criticism. However, as long as they vote for the bill and we get the increases through this month and into the hands of the pensioners, all will be well.
The hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) spoke of the Beech Hall project

Old Age Security Act
which happens to be in my constituency. We are very proud of it because it answers the need of our senior citizens for an independent and happy existence.
I am extremely pleased that the qualifying length of residence has been reduced from 20 to 10 years. There has been some criticism voiced both in the house and in the form of editorial comment across Canada about reducing the period of qualifying residence but I think we forget that the young adult immigrants who are coming to Canada bring with them their skills, trades and education. They represent no cost to Canada and we are inclined to lose sight of that fact. I have seen the figure $10,000 cited as representing what it costs Canadian taxpayers to educate one Canadian child, involving education, the baby bonus, health benefits and all these things. I believe the young immigrants who are coming to Canada will be a tremendous asset to this country. The older people who could no; qualify for the 20-year residence period in large part are the parents of these young immigrants. I believe we owe it to these new Canadians that we consider them as Canadians.
There have been many injustices under the 20-year qualification period. One example in my own constituency is that of a woman who came here from Britain as a bride. She lived here for 30 years and raised and educated four children. Just before the last war she and her husband went to England for a holiday. The war came along and all four of her children who were grown up at that time entered and fought in the Canadian forces for Canada. The woman and her husband were forced to remain in England and eventually the husband died. The woman was unable to return until 1947 and because of the hiatus of seven or eight years in her residence in this country she could not qualify for the old age pension. The present legislation will remove the possibility of that sort of injustice occurring. I feel that this is a good bill that rights many existing wrongs and I give it my wholehearted support.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: May I inform the house that if the minister speaks at this time he will close the debate.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me that I should have reserved my opening remarks on second reading for this stage of the debate. I think I answered at that time practically all the questions and arguments that had been raised in the discussion on second reading. However, I will attempt to answer one or two new angles that have been brought up.

1 would like to mention that while everybody seems definitely in favour of this bill the degree of variance ranges from one extreme to another. I would simply like to mention again the point I brought out in my opening remarks at this stage of the bill to the effect that if you carry these various conditions, such as the residence rule and permissible period of absence, to the ultimate extreme as has been suggested upon occasion you could readily create a situation wherein you would have a person coming to Canada at 69 years of age, staying one year and taking out of Canada a pension totally paid for except for one year by the Canadian taxpayers.
We believe we have reached a reasonable, sound, middle of the road course in these two provisions whereby we reduce the residence requirement from 20 to 10 years and increase the absence permissible from three to six months. We also, of course, believe that the $55 rate which we have set is the correct rate; after due consideration we believe that is the correct figure. We do not say it will meet every requirement-no. I do not think anybody could ever claim that and we do not pretend to, but what we do say is that in most cases, together with any private funds the senior citizen may have, this amount will meet the situation.
1 should like to assure the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) that any increase in pensions are always passed on directly to the beneficiary involved. There may be private retirement plans which hinge on the amount of the old age security cheque. I am not saying there are not because I do not know particularly. All I can say is that the cheque issued by the government of Canada to the pensioners is in its full amount. If there are these other situations I would say that they should be looked at and brought to the attention of the public, as the hon. member has done tonight.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) and the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney)-possibly there were others and if I have missed them I am sorry -have mentioned that if some pioneer Canadian citizen who has lived here all his life and has paid taxes in one form or another for years and years should at the age of 70 have to go south for his health he should be allowed to do so. I am inclined to think there is a great deal of merit in that suggestion. I certainly will be very happy to give it consideration as time goes on, but at the moment I do not see that we can do much about the matter without giving it considerable study.

Incidentally, the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) mentioned a pro rata pension. I think that probably falls into the same category. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) claimed during the debate that these pensions should be made payable any place and he wondered how many had been cancelled during the period of the scheme. I may say that the total is roughly 2,500. I mentioned that earlier in my remarks.
The hon. member for St. Antoine-West-mount (Mr. Marler) seemed very concerned about where the money was going to come from for this measure. I would be happy to tell him, of course, that if the formula were being changed it would seem reasonable that an amendment should be included in the amendments at this time as the two-two-two formula is actually mentioned in the bill. But I would also refer him to section 11, subsection 3, of the Old Age Security Act, which is in these words:
If the Minister of Finance is of opinion that the amount to the credit of the old age security fund is or will be less than the amount required to pay the pensions payable under this act, he may from time to time direct that amounts be credited to the fund by way of temporary loans and the amount of such loans shall be charged to the fund by way of repayment at such time as the Minister of Finance may direct.
Subsection 4 reads:
The Minister of Finance shall annually report to parliament the temporary loans, if any, made to the fund pursuant to this section, and whether, in his opinion, the revenues of the fund are or will be sufficient in the ensuing year to meet the charges on the fund without further loans and, if it appears that the revenues will not be sufficient, he shall state what measures he recommends for the purpose of increasing the revenues of the fund.
I would suggest that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) will announce his procedure at the appropriate time. I might also point out, however, that there was a considerable surplus at the end of the last fiscal period, and when the former minister of transport suggests that we may endanger our defence effort I am positive that will not be the case and he may rest assured that indeed that will not be done.
It is a strange coincidence that the amount involved in the amendments contained in the bill approaches $110 million which is not very much more than the amount used out of last year's revenues, namely $100 million, to set up the Canada Council.


George Carlyle Marler: Which the hon. member supported.


Jay Waldo Monteith: In this instance the $110 million is not going to the Canada Council, it is going to the senior citizens of the Dominion of Canada.


An hon. Member:: That was a capital fund.
96698-47i
Old Age Security Act


Jay Waldo Monteith: It came out of surplus.


George Carlyle Marler: Nonsense, it did not come out
of surplus at all.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Your surplus would have been much larger if you had not charged up that amount. There was one question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). He wondered how the matter of the six months absence from Canada would work. Actually in the past the act has been interpreted to mean that there could be three months clear absence from Canada. In other words, a person could leave Canada in January and could be away for February, March and April and would then have three months absence. He actually receives his cheque for the month he leaves Canada and does not receive a cheque thereafter until he returns. But if he returns within the appropriate time he is then paid all the cheques for the period in which he was absent from Canada. That position is going to continue except that the period is to be extended to six months.
I think there was a question in the mind of the hon. member for Vancouver East concerning a person who might leave Canada this month, we will say. According to the amendment, he has until the 31st or last day of the sixth month succeeding this month to return to Canada. He would start out this year and use up December. The first month in which he leaves does not count but he would have to count December of this year and could continue to stay away for the first five months of next year. Provided he was home on the 31st day of May there would be no penalty. His cheques would be paid to him which had been held back during his absence. Then he has one month still to go. He could still absent himself during November, 1958 and be away in December of that year.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether I have answered all the questions but I feel that I have. After all, as I said before, I think I actually answered them in my opening remarks.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-Suspension of pension.
George Carlyle Marler: I should like to draw to the attention of the minister two points in connection with the drafting of the revised subsection 1 of section 5. I should point out that in the first part of this subsection provision is made for the case of a pensioner who absents himself from Canada for a period in

Old Age Security Act
excess of one month, and provision is made that payment of his pension will be suspended immediately following the payment for the month in which he so absents himself, but may be resumed when the pensioner returns.
The second part says:
-where the pensioner returns to Canada within six months from the last day of the first month in which he so absented himself from Canada, the pension upon being resumed may also be paid for the period during which he so absented himself,-
These are the words I want to draw to the attention of the minister.
-but not exceeding a total of six months in any calendar year.
Now, it seems to me to be very clear, Mr. Chairman, that what is intended by this language is that the period of absence must not for the purpose of pension exceed six months. From the language here one would almost believe that regardless of what happened the total amount of instalments that might be paid to the pensioner was not to exceed six months in any calendar year. Perhaps I have not made myself quite clear. If a pensioner absents himself for just less than six months, I take it that it is the intention that he should have his pension not only for the six months he remains in Canada but also the six months during which he is absent. However, the language almost suggests that in the event of his being away for these six months the total payments will be -I draw attention to the last line-"not exceeding a total of six months in any calendar year".
It seems to me, in reading the section that that might almost limit all of the payments the pensioner was to receive to six months, whereas I conceive it to be the intention that if his absences do not exceed six months he receives payment for the six months he was in Canada and likewise for the six months he was absent, provided he meets the other conditions of the subsection. I should like to draw the minister's attention to the wording. It seems to me that if the wording were to refer more clearly to the period it would leave room for no doubt as to what the pensioner was to receive.
whether the language expresses that intention as clearly as it ought to be expressed.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well, Mr. Chairman, in some of these things I have to admit we go by what the law officers of the crown say. They are responsible for drafting this bill to meet the intentions of the government. The clause reads in part:
-six months from the last day of the first month in which he so absented himself from Canada, the pension upon being resumed may also be paid for the period during which he so absented himself, but not exceeding a total of six months in any calendar year.
The wording is somewhat changed from the previous subsection which it replaces, but at the same time I am led to believe it meets the requirements of and the intent behind the legislation. In my opinion, it seems reasonable.


George Carlyle Marler: It seems to me that if one looks at the wording of the present subsection, it concludes with these words:
-the pension upon being resumed may also be paid for a period of such absence not exceeding three months in any calendar year.
It seems to me that the language of that section does not admit of any possible doubt, whereas by changing the language, as has been done in this subsection, it does seem to give rise to doubt as to what is in mind.


Harold Edward Winch: I must admit that I, too, find myself a little confused. I have not got it completely clear yet, from a reading of this section, especially the latter part of it, where it says:
-the pension upon being resumed may also be paid for the period during which he so absented himself, but not exceeding a total of six months in any calendar year.
Now, would that stop a person being away October, November and December of this year, that is three months, and then being away three months in the first part of the next year because those three months would not be in the same calendar year?


Jay Waldo Monteith: He would have to return by March 31 next year, then he could subsequently go away again but he cannot be out of Canada for more than six consecutive months, except that the month in which he so absents himself does not count.


Jay Waldo Monteith: 
George Carlyle Marler: I agree with the minister as tion is that it does not seem to coincide with to what the intention is, but I am wondering what the minister has, I suggest in good faith,

been telling us during the discussion on second reading. As I understood him, he explained that one of the purposes of the bill was to permit a pensioner to be absent from Canada provided his absence did not exceed six months in a calendar year, but the situation that we are now finding embodied in this bill is not that he may be away for six months in a calendar year, but that he may not be away for more than six consecutive months in any twelve-month period?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No.


George Carlyle Marler: I think that is quite clear. Let us look at the hypothetical case mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver East. He says, supposing a pensioner leaves Canada on the 1st of October and is absent in that particular calendar year-assuming he was not absent before October-for three months. In the next succeeding calendar year the minister says he must be back by March 31. Why is that? His absence in that calendar year may only be five months, if he returns at the end of May, but he certainly qualifies for not being absent for more than six months in that calendar year. Yet, as I understand this section, and the minister's interpretation is quite correct, it does not conform with his explanation and the person must come back so that the period of absence does not exceed six months in a twelve-month period. I want to point out that what we have been talking about during the debate has been a six months' absence in a calendar year.


Jay Waldo Monteith: He still does get a six months-absence in a calendar year. He may not be able to use it consecutively because, for argument's sake, being away the last three months of 1957, and not being able to be absent for a period of from four to six months, he must return by March 31. But he still has three more months; in fact, he has four; he has three plus the number of days he leaves in the preceeding month. He still has that period to go in 1958, although I admit he must return on March 31 because he has presumably been away a succeeding total of six months.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I wonder whether I might ask the minister this question. In view of the objection he raised to permitting unlimited absence from the country, what is the significance of that one day? Does he feel that because a pensioner is in a position where he might be able to travel back to Canadian soil for a period of 24 hours, by virtue of that fact he becomes eligible to draw pension?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think the whole thought behind the act is lost when that matter is brought into consideration. In the amendment we are saying-this is exactly the
Old Age Security Act
same as it was before except it is extended beyond six months-that a person cannot be absent any more than six months without having to return to Canada. All right, you say, for argument's sake, he can come back on January 31, having been away five months in the previous year. He can come back on January 31 and spend one day, leave again on February 1 and stay another five months. That is quite so. But at the same time we must have some limitation; and we choose to believe that the six-month period is actually the figure that should be used at this time.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: The minister mentioned returning for one day. It would seem to me to be most unreasonable to say to a pensioner who was in Florida that he must pay his fare and all the expenses connected with such a trip in order to come back to Canada for one day. I ask that as a question. Would it seem reasonable to go to all of the expense to come here to Canada for one day which would qualify him for another three or four months in the south?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think I understand what are the hon. member's thoughts, but in the present legislation there is provision that he could be away for three months-for argument's sake, say the last three months in 1957-and have to come back for one day before he can go away for another three months. This is simply extending the period. He can be away the last six months in 1957, come back for January 1 and be away for the first six months in 1958.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I do not question this provision being in the other bill but I still think it is unreasonable to expect an old age pensioner receiving $55 a month to return to Canada when the cost to come to Canada and return might be $200. To me it would seem to be unreasonable.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It would appear to me that a person who has been in Florida, can afford it. I am not saying that everybody who goes south is one who can afford it but I believe that quite a few people who go down there, shall I say, for six months and return for a day and go back for six months can probably afford to do it for the one day.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: In line with the point raised by the hon. member over to my right,-I am not too sure which riding he represents-


An hon. Member:: Charlotte.


Murdo William Martin: -I think the wording of that particular section is a bit confusing. According to the explanation we have had

Old Age Security Act
from the minister, it means in essence that he cannot be away for more than six consecutive months.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is right; that is the intent of it.


Murdo William Martin: But it is a total of six months in one calendar year. Those are two entirely different meanings.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Will the hon. member repeat that question, please?


Murdo William Martin: The last line reads as follows:
-but not exceed a total of six months in any calendar year.
To take the wording literally it could mean that, in the hypothetical case that was raised, you could be away the last six months of this year, that is the last six months of 1957, and the first six months of 1958.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Provided that you returned for one day.


Murdo William Martin: You would not be over six months in either of the two calendar years. But according to the explanation given by the minister, it means that you cannot be away for more than six consecutive months, regardless of which year it is.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is not quite correct. The intent behind the amendment is that he cannot be away for more than six months. Mind you, he can be away for six months plus 29 days but that is the limit.


Charles Edward Johnston: It seems clear from the legislation that if a pensioner decides to leave the country he cannot receive any moneys at all until he has returned. Then if there is any back pay owing, he gets it. It seems to me that if a person who is in receipt of old age pension, and who for that reason would not have any surplus supply of money, is going away say to a warmer climate, as for instance down to Florida, to live, and who needs this money from his pension, he should get it. How in the world is he ever going to be able to stay there if he receives none of his pension in the period between the time he leaves and the time he comes back? Surely it would not do him much good otherwise. He would never have an opportunity to save enough money to pay his expenses down there for six months. If he could do so, he would not need the pension. The very fact that he needs the pension, and needs it every month, seems to me to be sufficient reason to pay him on a monthly basis.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not think we could do much about paying a pensioner when he was absent. If you continued to pay his cheque

during his absence he certainly would stay his full six months and there is no reason why he should not do so. By the amendment he is quite entitled to do that. But if he then did not come back to Canada we would be "out" the five months' cheques. We pay him his first month, the month in which he absents himself. From an administrative angle, it usually takes a few weeks to find out actually that the person is absent. Then the cheques are no longer mailed to him until he returns. It is true that maybe he has reason to have that money while he is still south in Florida or wherever it may be. If so, maybe he can save those cheques and use them to go south next year. But from an administrative angle I do not see how we could very well do otherwise. After all, we must protect our own situation.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister just pointed out a few moments ago that in all the time that pension has been in operation there were only something like 2,500 persons who had left and not returned.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is one of the reasons; because this clause was in force.


Charles Edward Johnston: In all of the
time that this pension has been operative there have been only 2,500 who have not returned. But you are going to penalize the other pensioners because a few decided not to return. I really cannot think that is a good reason for penalizing all these other pensioners who are desirous of leaving the country, probably for health purposes, just because one or two may decide not to return. I think the government should give the matter further consideration and should make it possible for our old age pensioners to go away, enjoy their pension, then come back at the end of six months, and the next year they can go ahead and do the same thing. The pensioner will have a mighty hard time in saving up his pension cheques, even though he is living here, so as to have enough money put aside to go on a trip for six months.


Colin Cameron: I cannot see what argument the minister has for withholding the pension cheque merely because of fear that the man may decide not to some back. What difference does it make? If he does not come back at the end of six months, all right, he is cut off according to your amendment. But what possible reason is there for not paying him for that six months during which you say he is entitled to be out of the country? What administrative difficulty is there? Is it so difficult to put a stamp on a letter to the United States? I do not see how the minister can present any argument at all.


Harold Edward Winch: What I have to say is along the same line. In the first month that the old age pensioner goes outside of Canada he gets his cheque. According to the minister, he gets his cheque for the month that he goes out and he gets it as a right because it is his pension. But it is also his pension for six months. He only loses it as a right if he does not come back in six months but the first six months of his pension is a right. The five months is just as much a right as the first month so why cannot the pensioner get it? I am afraid the hon. minister is not making sense.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well could I point out the following instance: if this person left the country ostensibly with the thought of returning in three to six months, as long as he is within the legal limit he is paid his cheque each month. However, if he decides to stay eight months then how could we recover the six months he had recevied?


Harold Edward Winch: Why should you want to recover the six months? That is his by right.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Because he owes us six months.


Colin Cameron: Why do you say he owes it to you; that is not your money it is his.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Not if he stays over the six months. That is not his right. He is not entitled to any one of those eight months he stays away over the six months.


Colin Cameron: What makes you say that, I do not see why?


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, on this point; if a pensioner leaves Canada and goes to Arizona for reasons of health, spends six months down there and is unable to return because of his ill health, then that pensioner is being robbed of his right. He is being robbed of five months' pension. On the other hand if his health permits him to return to the country for one day then he can recover the amount of the cheques. This does not seem to me to be a very fair provision; it discriminates against persons who by virtue of their ill health are unable to return to Canada at the end of the six months period. If they have earned that pension by right and have decided for their own reasons to stay down there permanently, of course they are cut out and the treasury of Canada is no longer required to pay them any pensions for the balance of the time after the six months. In other words it seems to me that this provision is designed for one purpose only and that is to make sure those people who do not return are denied their pension
Old Age Security Act
cheques for five months. I can see no other reason for the wording of the provision as it now stands in the bill.


An hon. Member:: If you do not like it vote against it.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: In reply, Mr. Chairman, the minister insinuated that any person who was able to go to Florida for six months could afford to go back and forth any time he wished.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No I did not.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Well I got that impression.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Do not put words into my mouth.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I have in mind a case of a gentleman and his wife whom I know very very well. He is a retired banker with a very small pension and has a very serious heart condition. His doctor advises him that he must not stay in a cold climate in winter time. This is the case I had in mind when I was speaking previously. Now for his wife and himself to go to Florida and for the matter of one day to be compelled to come back to Canada in order to qualify seems to me unreasonable. I do not question this was in the old act; I do not say it was not for one moment. However, even if it was in the old act I say that it is still wrong to compel a couple to come back to Canada, and put them to the expense of travelling back and forth simply to be here for one day in order to qualify for another three months down there. It does not seem reasonable to me at all.


Jay Waldo Monteith: If I might point this out, my hon. friend's friend will at least have twice as long out of the country now as he did before without it being necessary for him to come back. As I mentioned earlier when I was closing the debate on second reading, there are probably certain things to be done, such as the possibility of giving consideration to pioneer Canadians who have lived all their lives in Canada and have given years of service, paid taxes and so on.
There may be other sections of the act which require consideration but at the moment we are simply changing these three fundamental clauses, these three fundamental points. We are raising the pension from $46 to $55; reducing the residence period requirement from 20 to 10 years, and increasing the period of permissible absence from three to six months. Now there may be other things to be considered and I am not saying there are not. There are the regulations with the province which I think should be examined but which I have not had an

Old Age Security Act
opportunity or quite frankly the time to examine. I have not been in office long enough but I am quite willing to consider these things as time goes on. However, as I say, at the moment we just have to accept the fact that these are the three fundamental changes which are required.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The particular
change I have in mind is with respect to a person who would normally go away in say October or November. I am not thinking of the person who would go in January and stay away for six months or the next year-I think that is most reasonable-but I am thinking of the person who must be away during cold weather for reasons of health and leaves Canada for instance on the first of October; they are in Florida or some other country during October, November and December and they do not return to Canada until April 30.


Jay Waldo Monteith: They do not have to.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: You said a few moments ago they could not have over six months.


Jay Waldo Monteith: If he returns on April 30 he is quite within his rights.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: That is right, I do not question that.


Jay Waldo Monteith: If he leaves October 30 and returns April 30.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Well he has to come back on the first of April and be in Canada for one day and then go back for two more months. I still think it is unreasonable.


Mr. Aiken:: I think the hon. member has overlooked the fact that the spirit and intention of the act is that a person shall be allowed to stay out of Canada for six months. If he is going to come back to Canada for a day we would have to assume that he was merely coming back in a technical sense only.


An hon. Member:: To get his cheque.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: To get around the provisions of the statute and in that case he would be coming back for a technical purpose but not to carry out the intention of the act. I would think in those circumstances if he felt like coming back he would be within his rights to do so, but it would be at his own expense.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This is a departure from the principle established in the present section of the Old Age Security Act which reads as follows:
Where a pensioner absents himself from Canada, payment of his pension shall be suspended immediately following the payment for the month in

which he so absents himself, but may be resumed when the pensioner returns; and. where a pensioner returns to Canada within six months from the time he left Canada the pension upon being resumed may be also paid for a period of such absence not exceeding three months in any calendar year.
I understood that it was the practice that a pensioner could be away three months in one year or three months in the next or a total of six months and obtain his full pension upon return. I am of the opinion that this clause is more restrictive and departs from the principle which has been in effect since the act was first passed in this house.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, I think under the old legislation there were cases where people were out of the country for a period of six months. I quite clearly recall an asthmatic case who went to Arizona in the last three months of the year and he stayed there until the end of March. I think upon his return he got his pension for the whole six months period. Now probably that was against the law so I should not reveal his name, but I still think that under the old act he could obtain his old age pension for three months in any calendar year.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the minister if a person goes out of the country and stays away for eight months and then returns to Canada-assuming for medical reasons or something of that kind he had overstayed the six months period, coming back at the end of eight or nine months or even after a year-how long would he have to be in residence in Canada again before being entitled to further payments of the old age pension?


Jay Waldo Monteith: They are reinstated the month in which they return.


Mr. Irwin:: Can we assume that the calendar year is from January 1 to December 31 in any year?


Jay Waldo Monteith: A calendar year, yes.


Thomas James Irwin: So a person, according to the
minister, can actually be away for seven months? In view of the fact that a person gets his pension at the end of September- the 28th or 30th-he can be away in October, November, December, January, February, returning here in March; there would be nothing to stop him doing that and leaving shortly afterwards. Is that correct?


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is correct.


Thomas James Irwin: Why does the minister want
to keep these people from getting a pension? So far as I am concerned we are giving these people aged 70 and over a pension because they are 70 years of age. If they

are getting that pension because they are 70 years of age what the dickens difference does it make where they live?


George Carlyle Marler: I just want to say, before
we close the discussion, that I think our difficulty over this clause arises from the fact that throughout the discussion we had been led to understand that the bill would permit absences of six months in any calendar year, whereas we find it does not have exactly that effect. Unfortunately it has the effect of limiting the absence of a pensioner to not more than six months in any 12-month period.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No.


George Carlyle Marler: Well, let us say it puts a
practical difficulty in the way of somebody staying out of the country for more than six months plus the additional month of departure, and it seems to me the minister ought to look at the clause and see whether it would not be possible to make the language clear so that somebody who perhaps has legitimate grounds for leaving the country during the winter months is not forced to go through what one hon. member referred to a moment ago as a technical return. It seems to me that the main provision is that the limitation should not exceed six months in any calendar year. I cannot see any difficulty whether he has his absences all together over a 12-month period or not, provided they do not exceed six months in any calendar year, but the procedure of going back every six or seven months to be able to establish his return to Canada and complete six months residence in that calendar year seems unjustified and farcical.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I rather agree with the hon. member who has just spoken, but for another reason. There seems to be an unfairness about this one-day return. For instance, let us take a person who lives in Toronto, who goes over to Buffalo and has to return for one day to establish his residence. It is no trouble for such a person to come back to Canada. But let us consider another person who lives here in Ottawa and who goes to Florida. That is a different matter; he has to return a long way just for the sake of one day to establish his residence. Some hon. members may say that it is a very small thing, but there is a distinction here, an unfairness as between one citizen and another.


Jay Waldo Monteith: They are all the same.


Ernest George Hansell: No, a man who has to come back from Florida or from England is in a different position. Supposing a man goes to England. Does he have to come back for the 96698-48
Old Age Security Act
sake of one day? He does. So he is placed at very much of a disadvantage compared with another person who has to make a much shorter journey. As I say, there is unfairness between citizens, depending on how far they go away. It is all right to go across the line from Vancouver to Seattle and come back for a day, but a person who leaves Vancouver to go to England cannot come back for a day so easily.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Will the minister tell the house what is the value of causing an old age pensioner this extra expense in order to make a technical return of one day in order to qualify for another six month's eligibility for pension?


Jay Waldo Monteith: If you made it one year-if you made it two years, you would still need to have a return period, be it only one day. There was a return period prescribed under the three months legislation which had been in existence for some time. Now we are doubling that period of absence, but we still retain the one day requirement and I would venture to say that there are very few, if any, who contemplate returning for the one day. I venture to say that under this legislation a person leaving on October 1 can stay away till April 30, and I cannot imagine anything more reasonable than that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I am
informed that they were not required to return in the three months, because under the terms of the act I can recall several people who were away for six months and who did not return, because they used three months at the end of one year and three months at the beginning of the next.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Under the previous legislation I understand they could not go away for two years, if they had done this.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, the explanatory note in the bill to this subsection reads as follows:
Where a pensioner absents himself from Canada, payment of his pension shall be suspended immediately following the payment for the month in which he so absents himself, but may be resumed when the pensioner returns:	and where the
pensioner returns to Canada within six months from the time he left Canada, the pension upon being resumed may also be paid for a period of such absence not exceeding three months in any calendar year.
As I read that it means that if a pensioner goes out of the country on October 1 and returns before the end of March he may receive his full six months pension with respect to the three months of the calendar year, October, November and December, and for the three months of January, February and March. So it was possible under the old

Old Age Security Act
legislation for a pensioner to be absent from the country for the full six months without having to return to Canada during that period.


Jay Waldo Monteith: He did, however, use up two years of rights; he could not go away the succeeding October and remain away without losing his benefits.


Mr. Quelch:: I gather that the minister's main objection to paying an old age pensioner by the month while he is still away is the possibility that that pensioner may have no intention of returning. In other words, the pensioner might possibly have sold his house and decided to take up residence in another country to which the pension would be sent. I agree with the minister that in a case like that, that if a person had ended his domicile in this country, sold his house and made up his mind to five in another country, then the pension should not be paid.
On the other hand there might be cases of old age pensioners who own houses in this country and who fully intend to return. It seems to me there is a difference between the two situations. It seems to me it would be a comparatively easy thing for the minister to be assured that a pensioner intended to return. If he had property in this country he could give some form of guarantee that he intended to come back, otherwise the cost of that pension could be taken from the value of the house.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: What guarantee could he give if he had no property?


Victor Quelch: I am thinking of the man who has some property.


Richard Albert Bell: We are thinking of the people who have no property.


Victor Quelch: At least the department could get security from a pensioner who does own property in this country; it could go that far.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I did say earlier, and it is quite true, that we do not pay a pensioner beyond the month in which he absents himself, because if he did happen to stay two or three months longer we would have the job of collecting. I am sure every hon. member of this house has had lots of letters from constituents from whom certain amounts have had to be collected, and they know how they are received. After all, collecting these sums is a very unpopular course. This particular course, however, does not seem to be unpopular among the beneficiaries. Experience has shown that, and it is a lot worse to try to collect afterwards. We are protecting the beneficiary from having to pay that backlog.
[Mr. Ellis.1


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, in order to overcome what seems to be the most serious objection to this clause, I wonder if the minister would consider amending it so that in the event a person was required to stay away for more than six months because of illness and then returned within a 12-month period intending to establish residence again he would be paid the full six months during which he was away. The cut-off date would be a full year and if he returned within a year he would be paid for the six months' absence.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I mentioned earlier that there were certain things to which I would be happy to give consideration and this is one of them but I do not feel this is the time to give that consideration. I think it has to be thought out very clearly and well.


Mr. Low:: Mr. Chairman, I think I can
appreciate something of the problem the minister faces from an administrative point of view, if for no other reason, which perhaps makes him hesitate at this time to consider making the pension payable as of right no matter where the pensioner may be. I think there are quite a number of administrative difficulties involved. I know some of them because I have had experience in administering pensions in the province and these problems would be ten times as great in the federal field.
I suppose we should be asking the former minister of national health and welfare concerning the philosophy behind the provision that exists requiring a return to Canada and withholding of the pension in the absence of the pensioner during the three or six month period during which he may be away because that was established by the Liberal administration and I am not in a position now to ask the former minister about that background.
I would certainly suggest to the new minister that in the next year or two he give consideration to the suggestion that has been made and see if the administrative difficulties can be overcome so the pension will be payable as of right no matter where the pensioner lives. I believe the minister said that approximately 2,500 pensioners had been cut off over the years in the past. It may be necessary to conduct some sort of survey to determine what has happened to them and what kind of problems were involved in their moving around.
If the minister would give an undertaking that he will give this matter consideration perhaps with a view to changing the act again at some not too distant future date I would be quite content to have the bill

put through in its present form. As I understand it, what we are doing here is simply extending the practice of the past but we are giving a six-month leave of absence rather than a three-month leave of absence. Under the old clause, as I understand it, a person could be away for six months without disqualifying himself but upon his return to the country all he could claim was a payment of pension for three months. Under the present scheme if he leaves for six months and then returns he can claim the whole of the six months under the regulations. It is an improvement, believe me.
If the minister cannot see his way clear to making the change that is requested now, if he will give me an undertaking that he will study the matter with a view to changing the system in the future I will, as I said, be prepared to let the bill pass in this form.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Peace River is not quite correct-


Henri Courtemanche: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Timmins.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I misunderstood you.


Murdo William Martin: I wonder if the minister could explain to me why it is more difficult to administer this plan by cutting off at the end of six months rather than at the end of one month. I cannot see how there would be any greater difficulty in the administration of the act.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Because, Mr. Chairman, if a pensioner stays away the extra month or two he is not entitled to the six months during which he was absent. He has to return in order to be entitled to the months in which he was absent. Then, too, you might have the job of collecting and he might not be in this country.


Colin Cameron: It does not apply to the first month.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, because the first month is free.


Colin Cameron: Oh no, it is not; it is a total of six months.


Jay Waldo Monteith: He is entitled to the month in which he absents himself.


Colin Cameron: But you only pay for a total of six months, not seven months.


Jay Waldo Monteith: But he is entitled to the month in which he absents himself.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I just rise to suggest that the hon. member for Peace River was not quite correct in saying this is 96698-48J
Old Age Security Act
the same as the old practice. This is a departure in principle from the administration of the previous government.


Solon Earl Low: In what way?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Because the pensioner could stay away for three months and then for an additional three-month period providing it fell at the beginning and end of a year and could collect his whole pension when he returned.


Solon Earl Low: No, he could only claim for three months in each calendar year.


Jay Waldo Monteith: He could go away that autumn.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member for Peace River suggested that the minister give consideration to this matter in the next year or two with a view to bringing in an amendment. I would suggest he give it consideration in the next month or two.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister has already made it clear that the consideration involved in this matter of not carrying on the pension payment during the period the pensioner is absent is not one of administrative difficulty. Apparently he has made it clear that he is prepared to deny the rights of pensioners to be absent from Canada for more than the month in which they go away as a matter of right. I wonder if the minister could give us an idea of what he estimates would be the drain on the treasury of Canada if that period of absence were granted as a right and the pension payments were continued up to the period which he proposes of six months.
I think it has become obvious during this discussion that the whole impact of these restrictions is going to rest upon the people who depend primarily upon the old age pension. The problem of coming back for a day for a week or longer is not a serious matter to the person who has other means but this is not the case with the person who because of health or family connections wants to reside outside of Canada and is dependent almost entirely upon the pension. Such people are really caught in the bite with regard to this matter.
It seems to me it is all very well for the minister to say this is a matter to which he will give consideration in the future. We all recognize that the minister has not been in office very long as yet and there may be a great many matters to which he has not had an opportunity of giving adequate study, but at the same time I would point out that this particular matter is not a new one for this house. It has been the subject of pretty

Old Age Security Act
thorough discussion, certainly in every session during the time I have been here, and the minister should not be unfamiliar with it.
It seems to me that having gone as far as he has the minister might have gone one little step further, unless he can convince us it is going to make such a great drain upon the treasury that the matter of extending this right would bankrupt the government of Canada.


Jay Waldo Monteith: May I simply say, Mr. Chairman, there could be an amount of roughly $4 million which might have to be collected.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Next sitting.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Now, by leave?


Some hon. Members:: By leave.


Jay Waldo Monteith: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George Carlyle Marler: What will be the business of the house tomorrow?


Mr. Brooks:: Tomorrow we will take second reading of the bill to amend the Old Age Assistance Act, second reading of the bill to amend the Blind Persons Act, the resolution respecting the Disabled Persons Act, the resolutions standing in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and then the throne speech debate.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.