1957-11-01

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question. Is he aware that there is a disastrous slump in shipments of wheat from Montreal harbour, and can he do anything to increase the movement of grain from the port of Montreal?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I would like to thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of this question two minutes ago. I think he is quite incorrect in using the term "disastrous". There has been a slowing down in the movement of wheat from Montreal harbour, which has been offset by a record movement of grain from Vancouver and other Pacific coast ports-


Lionel Chevrier: That is very comforting to Montreal.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and from the port of Churchill in Manitoba. A great deal of that was occasioned by ocean freight rates which made it, in the opinion of importers of wheat in Europe, advantageous to place their orders at Vancouver.
The hon. member wants to know if anything can be done to increase the movement of grain in the port of Montreal. I notice in the article to which he refers that there is a promise of a moderate pick-up in grain shipments from Montreal indicated for the closing weeks of navigation, and it is expected that pick-up will become evident within just a very few days. The wheat board is fully aware of the situation, and is naturally interested in accelerating the movement of wheat through the St. Lawrence waterway.
(Translation):



THE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Since a new vacancy
has occurred in the Senate in respect to the Catholic representation of the province of Ontario, will the right hon. Prime Minister appoint, this time, a senator who would represent the French element of the province? (Text):


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take notice of that question.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Marler (St. Anloine-Wesi-mount):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I am sorry I have not been able to give him notice, but perhaps in any event he will wish to make inquiries. The Canadian Press reported last night that the Canadian Car company had started to lay off 1,000 workers in its Turcotte and Dominion plants, and this lay-off is ascribed to the fact that a decision was taken by the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways to cancel orders for new equipment. I wonder whether the minister would make inquiries to find out whether this was a cancellation of an order placed, or whether it is the fact that no order was placed as anticipated.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to make inquiries of both railways and give an answer on Monday.



IMMIGRATION PER HOLTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Under what Canadian law was Per Holting, a Canadian citizen, landing from an S.A.S. flight in Winnipeg, forced back on to the aircraft and compelled to go to Los Angeles, and thus deported without trial?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I should say that I cannot accept all the implications in his question as
648	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry he has phrased it, but the result of inquiries establishes that there was a Mr. Per Holting who was involved in such an incident at Winnipeg at 9 a.m. on Friday, October 25. In our citizenship files we have a record of a Mr. Per Beckmand Holting and it may well be, therefore, that the man involved in this incident is the same as the one on our files, in which case he would be a Canadian citizen.
It would appear that Mr. Holting, who had been in Greenland on an assignment for the C.B.C., purchased a ticket from Greenland to Los Angeles, and that when the aircraft landed at Winnipeg he attempted to get off. According to press reports Mr. Holting claimed that he was unaware that he could not debark but, as the house knows, the transport regulations do not permit Scandinavian Airlines to debark passengers at Winnipeg. When Mr. Holting persisted in his efforts the captain of the aircraft called the St. James municipal police, who put him back on board, and I understand that he continued on the flight to Los Angeles.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Do I understand, then, that the transport regulations override the basic rights of Canadian citizens?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there would be any profit in entering into a controversy here. I think the situation, while difficult, is clear. I understand it is a condition of the ticket sold that the passenger must continue through to Los Angeles and cannot debark in Winnipeg.


George Carlyle Marler: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Justice. Can he tell us what regulations apply to the incident to which he has just referred? He has mentioned regulations of the air transport board. I should like to know what those regulations are.


Mr. Fullon:: I do not think I referred to regulations of the air transport board. If I used the word "regulations" I did so in the general sense and perhaps should have used the phrase "conditions of the ticket" which are imposed, I believe, by the agreement under which this air service is allowed to operate into Canada.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: May
I ask a supplementary question of the minister of immigration. Is it not a fact that the sale of a ticket to an individual merely precludes the possibility of a ticket sale to Winnipeg; but if the passenger takes a ticket to Los Angeles, and he is a Canadian citizen, could he not disembark even if his ticket read to Los Angeles?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think that might be an issue that would have to be tried in the courts, and I would not care to express an opinion here and now. I think it should also be noted that, in my understanding, Scandinavian Airlines would be subject to a heavy penalty if they permitted a passenger to debark at Winnipeg. As to the propriety of the action which was taken, it not having been taken by any governmental authority-at least certainly not by an official of the dominion government but by the police of St. James at the request of the air line-it seems to me that it is not the sort of thing on which I should comment offhandedly. As to whether there was any right infringed, it seems to me that if there was the person concerned has an opportunity of asserting that right and having it settled in the courts.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I have a further supplementary question of the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member asks the question may I warn him that it appears that these questions relate to matters not under the jurisdiction of the minister, and also they ask for legal opinions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was going to ask the minister concerned this question. Of course I recognize that the minister should not give legal opinions himself in the house, but in view of the fundamental provision of the Immigration Act that a Canadian citizen has the right to enter Canada at all times it does seem to me-and I am not criticizing the government at all in saying this-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentlemen can possess their souls in patience just a little while. My question is this. Would the minister get from the law officers of the crown an opinion as to whether any Canadian citizen, a police officer or anyone else, has the right to take another Canadian citizen and put him on a vehicle sending him out of the country? It seems to me that this is an extraordinary thing to permit one citizen to do to another, even if he happens to be a police officer. I want to emphasize again-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member has taken considerable latitude in stating his question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think the terms of the question fairly well provide its own answer.

Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation) ;



HUMAN RIGHTS


Alistair McLeod Stewart: May I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: A further supplementary question?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Is he yet in a position to inform us when he will be prepared to bring down legislation providing for a bill of rights for Canadians?


John George Diefenbaker: I answered that question earlier. The matter is still under advisement and consideration.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, of which I have given him notice. In view of the fact that the former government had committed itself to establishing a secondary airport to the Vancouver international, and as this airport has for the second consecutive month had more landings of planes than any other in Canada, would the minister indicate what progress, if any, has been made in the establishment of a secondary airport in the lower mainland of British Columbia?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. The Department of Transport is proceeding toward the development of two additional airports to serve the Vancouver area. I have already informed the house that my department is negotiating with the Department of National Defence regarding the transfer of Abbotsford airport which, if taken over by my department, will in due course be developed for use as an alternate for scheduled services presently using the Vancouver international airport. In addition a site at Pitt Meadows has been selected for the development of a small satellite field for use by light aircraft on wheels and floats, and action is presently under way to acquire the land for this purpose.
9G698-42



INQUIRY AS TO CONSTRUCTION OF AIRPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Maltais (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Transport. I am sorry I was unable to give him notice of my intention to do so but, as it bears on a very important matter, he might perhaps answer it right now.
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?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the question as notice.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REPLY AS TO CALLING CONFERENCE ON AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Yesterday the member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) asked me the following question:
Does the government propose to call a federal-provincial conference on agricultural development?
I answered that question a few days ago. The hon. member will find it in the official report of the debates of the house.
(Text):



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister's attention been called to a news report from Bonn, West Germany, appearing in this morning's Montreal Gazette, which relates to the reconstruction of the heavy industry cartel in Germany which produced Hitler? In view of the fact that two of the individuals concerned, namely Alfred Krupp von Bohlen and Axel L. Wenner-Gren, are

Inquiries of the Ministry at the present time preparing to exploit Canadian resources, will the Prime Minister investigate the activities of these gentlemen to see whether there is some way in which the Canadian economy can be preserved from them?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the observations of my hon. friend are in keeping with what one might expect from an hon. member who does not believe in private enterprise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Private enterprise does not carry with it the right of exploitation. As to foreign capital coming into Canada, it is not the purpose of this government to interfere with that investment. However, we want to ensure-and I think the house generally will agree with that stand-that investment in Canada shall be for Canadian purposes and under Canadian law. Where there is any deviation or diversion in that regard action can be taken under the combines act.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. The Prime Minister made use of the phrase "for Canadian purposes". Does that exclude the use of Canadian resources to rebuild the heavy industry cartel in West Germany?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unless the Prime Minister wishes to answer the question, may I say that I consider it to be one that is not in accordance with the rules. As I understand it, it relates to cartels in Germany, and certainly that is a matter which is beyond the jurisdiction of this house at present.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a delayed supplementary question in view of his answer to my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron). Does he consider the building of cartels by former leading nazis to be in the interests of Canadian private enterprise?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to answer that question. I certainly do not. But the question in the form in which it was asked deserved the answer which it received. As to my hon. friend's last question, may I say that I certainly do not hold that view even in the slightest degree.


Colin Cameron: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, to protest that no matter what my question was it did not deserve the shoddy answer it got from the Prime Minister.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, you have just indicated that you thought the question put to the Prime Minister was not in conformity with the rules of this house. If that is the case, with great respect, it is not open to a minister of the crown, including even the Prime Minister, to answer a question which in your judgment is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman who has just spoken whether he refers to the question asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) ?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe that question was not answered.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I was in error, Mr. Speaker. I was referring to the question put by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). Your Honour said that question was out of order but the Prime Minister said, notwithstanding the rules of parliament, "I, the Prime Minister, want to answer."


John George Diefenbaker: You are wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall be glad to take under consideration the point of order which has been raised as to whether it is in order to reply to a question which is out of order and it may be the hon. member is correct.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Thank you, sir.


James Ross Fulton: It is based on a misconception.


Mr. Speaker:: Actually the question has been asked and is before the house, but I should like to reserve my ruling on that point.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport the following question. Has the minister taken cognizance of the report in this morning's press of a statement by a member of the Canadian board of marine underwriters that because of the growing number of accidents on the St. Lawrence, separate channels should be provided in the river for both upbound and downbound traffic? Will the minister comment on this recommendation, which is of importance to ship operators, and will he say whether his department will provide separate lanes for shipping on the St. Lawrence as in the connecting channels of the great lakes?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I had not seen the report in this morning's press. I should like to thank my hon. friend for his courtesy in advising me of his intention to ask this question. However, as it arrived at my office just before the house opened I would ask that I be allowed to take it as notice and give an answer on Monday.



ST. LAWRENCE RIVER  STATEMENT ON IMPROVE- MENT OF FACILITIES DURING WINTER SEASON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: On Wednesday the hon. member for Charlevoix asked me this question, as reported at page 560 of Hansard:
Has the Minister of Public Works received any representations regarding the increasing difficulties encountered by winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river north of Quebec, and what steps are to be taken to improve the dock facilities at Pointe-au-Pic, 90 miles below Quebec city?
The answers are yes; representations were made to the Department of Public Works by the comite du Port d'Hivera Pointe-au-Pic, on September 14, 1957. The necessity for improved wharf facilities there is being studied.


Auguste Maltais: A supplementary question on the answer given by the minister. May I ask the minister whether this study period will be over before winter comes along?


Howard Charles Green: May I assure the hon. member that in the Department of Public Works we always reach the right answer, and reach it very quickly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You never answer letters, though.


Mr. Lesage:: You take some time to answer letters.



STATEMENT ON FACILITIES TO BE USED AT SAULT STE. MARIE LOCKS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: On Wednesday the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) asked me the following question, as reported at page 561 of Hansard:
Since there are no definite plans to prepare the Canadian Sault locks for deep sea draught vessels, can we assume that the United States locks at the Sault are to be the future passageway of such vessels going to and from lake Superior?
The answer is that the Canadian Sault Ste. Marie lock was enlarged to its present dimensions of 60 feet in width, 900 feet in length and normal draught of 18 feet 3 inches between the years 1887 and 1895. The United 96698-424
Inquiries of the Ministry States locks were built progressively and afford deeper draught than ours, and have been used as required by Canadian shipping drawing too much water or of greater size than could be accommodated through the Canadian lock.
There is nothing to prevent Canada from improving the facilities at Sault Ste. Marie to provide for the passage of deep sea draught vessels any time she chooses. In view of the adequacy of the United States locks it has not been felt necessary to duplicate, at a very substantial cost to the taxpayers, the facilities at the Sault. It might be pointed out in this connection that the United States use the Welland ship canal.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: I have a
question, Mr. Speaker, which I would have addressed to the Minister of Finance but I notice he is absent this morning, so I will address the question to the Prime Minister or the parliamentary assistant to the minister. My question is based on the leading headline article in the Gazette this morning respecting the government's attempt to alleviate the tight money policy. The article also indicates that there is a rift between the Minister of Finance and the governor of the Bank of Canada. Is the minister prepared to make a statement now as to what the government is doing to remedy the tight money policy?


Mr. Richard A. Bell (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that all aspects of financial and monetary policies are receiving from the Minister of Finance his usual assiduous attention and consideration. When it is appropriate to make announcements, in accordance with the policy of this government, those announcements will be made in the house forthwith. With respect to any suggestion of a rift I would like to say that I am sure the policies of this government are of such merit that they will commend themselves to public servants as they will commend themselves to the public generally.


George Carlyle Marler: May I ask a supplementary question of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. Could he tell the house what the government has done to improve the tight money situation about which his predecessors complained so bitterly?


Howard Charles Green: What did you do?


An hon. Member:: We are asking you.
652	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: I doubt if orders of
the day is an appropriate time to make the detailed presentation to the house which would be necessary to deal with the many things that have been done by this government. If the house will get ahead with its business so that an opportunity for financial discussions may arise, then these things will be outlined in full.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I take note that the government is giving no information whatsoever.



BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. C. Christian (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have given notice of my question to the Minister of Finance, but I see he is not in the house this morning. I would respectfully ask that his assistant, or some other minister, answer the following question. Is the Bank of Canada a semiautonomous banking institution, as stated in the Montreal Gazette of today's date.


Mr. Speaker:: That question, if I may
respectfully suggest this to the hon. member, is really asking for information which is public information in the statute setting up the Bank of Canada, and it does not appear to me to be a proper question to ask on the orders of the day.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. 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?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the minister to whom the question was put is absent at the moment on other business, but I will see that this question comes to his attention.



SEARCH AND RESCUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question 

to the Prime Minister. What action has been taken by this government to establish a Canadian coast guard?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the hon. member's question indicates a desire on his part for action on every matter that deserves attention and which has deserved attention for a long while. When the emergency legislation before the house has received attention, then these matters which have been so long delayed will receive the proper consideration.


An hon. Member:: No policy.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may put a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister expedite the construction of the bait depot at Bonavista to provide badly needed winter employment?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter.



LACHINE SECTION, ST. LAWRENCE RIVER- APPLICATION BY QUEBEC

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister tell the house whether the government of the province of Quebec has made an application to his department under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for the development of power in the Lachine section of the St. Lawrence river?


Howard Charles Green: May I take that question as notice.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the confusion which now exists in New Brunswick and elsewhere in Canada with regard to the future use of Camp Gagetown, would the minister consider making a statement to the house in order to clarify this situation and say if it is the intention of his department to reduce the number of men who will be training at Gagetown next summer?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: As announced a couple of weeks ago, a training directive was issued which indicated that the regular army during the coming year would train in brigade groups rather than as a division.
Therefore there should not be as many trainees at Gagetown this coming year as there were last year.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Can the minister state approximately how many fewer men will be training this year than there were supposed to be according to the program which was laid out?


George Randolph Pearkes: I cannot say exactly how many.



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Is he aware that today is the first anniversary of the Springhill mine disaster in which 39 miners lost their lives?


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Cumberland asked me a question a few minutes ago I did not understand what he had in mind. I can tell the people of Springhill that this house is in full sympathy with them on the first anniversary of the mine disaster. So far as federal assistance is concerned, that is a matter of government policy; but the people of that district may rest assured we will do everything in our power to help them.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: On October 30 the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres asked me a question as reported at page 563 of Hansard:
Has the minister's attention been drawn to the fact that in the selection of workers for the construction of the post office building in Sorel the federal employment bureau has been completely by-passed, and that discriminatory political patronage is practised on a large scale? If so, what does the government intend to do about it?
The answer is that this work is being done by a general contractor and the Department of Public Works has no control over the people he hires, subject to the fact that in
Inquiries of the Ministry the contract there is a term which makes it necessary for him to hire local labour where such is available.


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Will the Minister of Labour not consider advising the contractor of the regulations directing him to utilize the services of the employment bureau in Sorel for the construction of the building?


Howard Charles Green: We have no authority to tell the contractor how he must get his employees. We can insist that he hire local labour, but it is entirely within the discretion of the general contractor as to how he gets those employees.


Lionel Chevrier: You can give him a hint.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt that
the previous government gave those contractors a great many hints. We are trying to do a little better.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You give them directives. Ask the Postmaster General.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public
Works): On October 30 the hon. member for Levis asked me a question in these words, as reported at page 567 of Hansard:
Have reports been made to the department regarding the construction of a bridge between Three Rivers and Ste. Angele in the province of Quebec?
The answer to that is-
Mr. Maurice Bourget (Levis):: There must be a mistake. I did not ask for reports; I asked if a request had been made for the construction of a bridge, not reports.


Howard Charles Green: I wondered about that. Hansard
reads "reports".


Maurice Bourget: I did not see Hansard.


Howard Charles Green: There has been a request from the municipal corporation of the parish of St. Antoine de la Baie du Febvre. This has also been drawn to my attention by the Solicitor General.



STATEMENT ON MISSION TO COMMUNIST CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have an answer now for the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and other hon.

Inquiries of the Ministry members who asked questions concerning the proposed visit of our trade commissioner to China.
China is part of the trade promotion territory of our trade commissioner in Hong Kong, and in the course of his normal duties he is expected and required to visit all parts of his territory. In December, 1955, China was listed as falling within the responsibility of Canada's trade commissioner in Hong Kong. The proposed visit to China is, therefore, in no sense a trade mission but rather an exploratory trip by an officer through a part of his territory.
A year ago, following the successful visit to China of the Australian trade commissioner in Hong Kong, our trade commissioner reported fully to the Department of Trade and Commerce and at the same time suggested the desirability of a similar visit by himself. This was taken under advisement, and during the course of the year an exchange of correspondence took place between the head office in Ottawa and the trade commissioner in Hong Kong, in an attempt to determine whether the present would be an appropriate time to undertake a visit to China. In view of the increasing interest in China by Canadian and other businessmen the officials of the department decided to recommend an exploratory visit.
Mr. Forsyth-Smith will be accompanied by Mr. T. M. Pope as an assistant trade commissioner. The officials will carry no credentials beyond the customary diplomatic passports provided all trade commissioners. Mr. Forsyth-Smith and his assistant are planning to leave Hong Kong about November 5. On their return to Hong Kong the trade commissioner will report fully on trade possibilities and it is, of course, to be hoped that his visit will uncover opportunities for the sale of additional non-strategic products in China.


Major James William Coldwell: May
I ask a supplementary question. The minister said the officials would carry Canadian passports. What provision is made for obtaining visas from the government of the Chinese mainland; because I presume the government of the Chinese mainland will require visas, as other countries do? What provision is being made to secure them?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The trade commissioner has made those arrangements. When I was answering this question earlier in the House of Commons and said that plans had not been completed, at that time he had not obtained his visa from the Chinese authorities. Subsequently he reported that he has obtained a visa and his papers are in order.


Mr. Bryson:: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister give the house his definition of a non-strategic material?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The question of strategic materials has been discussed in the House of Commons on many occasions in the last few years, but certainly non-strategic materials would be foodstuffs such as wheat, and that is the main interest at the present time. Hon. members may have noticed that a serious crop situation has developed in China recently, and there is grave danger of starvation of many of the Chinese people. If hon. members are interested there is an article in the current issue of Time which deals with that matter.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: May I
ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. In view of the fact that public funds are being spent to send a delegation to China, will the Prime Minister reconsider the question of recognizing the government on the mainland in the hope that we may extend our exports?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the experience of the United Kingdom, which recognized communist China prior to the Korean war, has added little to the extension or expansion of trade between that country and communist China. There is nothing inconsistent about endeavouring to trade and at the same time not recognizing the government of that country. The attitude of this government is unchanged in that direction, and until such time as the people's government, the communist government of China, expiates its wrongdoing under international law there certainly will be no justification for the granting of recognition, as we see it.
Recognition under international law in the past used to be a juridical act, but today the information we have indicates that recognition would be regarded by various countries in Asia which have withstood communism as an act of more than legal recognition and, indeed, would be interpreted as a recognition of communism as such and would afford to those who today resist communism the removal of a major incentive that has impelled them to take their stand firmly against the onrush of communism throughout portions of Asia.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask a supplementary question. The Prime Minister has said that if the so-called Chinese people's republic expiated its crimes, then his government would give consideration. Does he mean by expiation that if they undid their participation in the Korean war

the government would do so, or does he wish to add to that the reasons which the government of the United States has given as well?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in no way accepting the interpretation of my remarks as placed thereon by the hon. member for Essex East, may I say that our stand is unchanged with regard to recognition. It might be epitomized in the words of a former prime minister of this country, paraphrasing those words to apply them to the present circumstances: not necessarily recognition but recognition when necessary.


An hon. Member:: If necessary.


John George Diefenbaker: In other words the matter is subject to constant revision, but there is no purpose, intentionally or otherwise, at this time or in the immediate foreseeable future, to bring about recognition.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: In view of the importance of this question could the Prime Minister be more precise as to what he means exactly by "expiation"?


An hon. Member:: Look it up in a dictionary.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I have asked the Prime Minister a question and he has not replied. I take it he does not intend to answer a very important question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend can look up the dictionary definition of expiation, and I am sure under those circumstances he will have a full answer.


Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina Cily):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. If the Prime Minister feels that recognition of the government of the Chinese mainland might imply approval, would he say that diplomatic recognition of the U.S.S.R. implies any measure of approval on the part of the Canadian government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This seems to be developing into an argument or debate. In view of the rather important statement which the Prime Minister has made I am quite prepared to have comments, but I think the hon. member for Regina City will be willing to let that question stand.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a matter arising out of the answer given by the Prime Minister, and I believe it is a very important point. If the Prime Minister feels that diplomatic recognition involves some measure of approval, how does he justify the fact that Canada today recognizes quite a number of countries whose governments
Inquiries of the Ministry certainly by no stretch of the imagination could be considered acceptable to the Canadian people?


Mr. Speaker:: My point, and I would ask the hon. member for Regina City to consider it, is that I do not feel we should now enter into a debate on foreign policy, and that is what we would do if we pursued this line of questions and answers. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister did make a lengthy and important statement I said I was prepared to hear briefly spokesmen for the official opposition and the other parties, but I do not think I should admit questions of an argumentative type.


Mr. Claude Richardson (St. Lawrence-Sl. George):: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a supplementary question. Since the government has taken office has the minister or the government received any representations from or had any communications with any parties in Canada regarding the possible sale of wheat in China?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not aware of any representations made to the government with respect to the question asked by the hon. member.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce about the proposed visit to Japan, widely publicized in the press, of Mr. Ezra Benson, United States secretary of agriculture, and the acceptance of Japanese currency for United States wheat, such currency to be invested in Japan. Has the minister made any investigation of the matter, and what steps does he propose to take in order that we may safeguard the market which we have promoted in Japan?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite clear as to whether I should keep under surveillance the movements of Mr. Benson.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not suggesting that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think he is entitled to go anywhere he wishes to promote trade between the United States and other countries. This is not the beginning of United States trade with Japan; far from it. The United States has encouraged the consumption of wheat in Japan and is doing so at the present time. Canada has benefited accordingly from that, because as wheat becomes more acceptable in countries where the people are normally rice eating, there is greater prospect of the sale of Canadian wheat.
We are taking no steps with regard to Mr. Benson's visit to Japan. We anticipate that our trade in wheat with Japan will be maintained at its present level. Japan is our

Inquiries of the Ministry third best customer for wheat and we think that trade will be improved, but I cannot quite see the connection between that situation and the visit of Mr. Benson.
Mr. Cold well: May I just give the connection. Recently there was a conference between the Minister of Trade and Commerce and other representatives of the Canadian government and the United States government. I understood it was agreed that the United States would discontinue methods of marketing that interfere with Canadian trade. Does the minister consider that the taking of Japanese currency for investment by the United States in that country, in payment for wheat, is in any way carrying out what is believed to be the understanding reached at Washington?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The meeting at Washington was certainly very profitable. We achieved complete understanding with the United States representatives concerning their surplus disposal program. The chief damage of the United States surplus disposal program as it affected Canadian sales of wheat was due to their method of bartering wheat for strategic materials, and we have had an assurance from them that this will be discontinued.
Now, there are other methods of disposing of wheat, through sales for local currency, as has been mentioned by the hon. member. This course has been followed where wheat has not, over the years, been accepted by the population. There may be no permanent damage done. The sale of wheat for local currencies has been made by the United States in a number of countries, but I do not see how we can raise any objection to that unless there is an interference with a traditional Canadian market. In this instance I do not think any harm is going to result at all.


Major James William Coldwell: It seems the United States did fix us, then.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: May
I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce this question. Has the trade commissioner in Hong Kong been given specific instructions to explore the possibility of developing a market for Canadian forest products on the mainland of China?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Our trade commissioner who is visiting Hong Kong will naturally look into all aspects of possible Canadian trade with China and will report to us.
I just caught an interjection, Mr. Speaker, by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, which if I caught it correctly was that the United States did fix us. There was no fixing of the Canadians by the United States repre-


sentatives when we were at Washington. It was a first class and useful meeting. There was an exchange of views in a way in which I think they had not been exchanged in the past at all, and the United States government has a better understanding of Canadian problems than it ever had before.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is quite true.


Henry Joseph Murphy: Did you call them buccaneers this year?


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: May I ask
a further supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, arising out of the reply he just gave to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. He stated that the trade commission to China would be interested in selling all sorts of non-strategic materials. In view of the fact that China was one of the important markets for Newfoundland squid, will the minister instruct his commission to see what the possibilities are for having that market reopened?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, to assure the hon. member perhaps I might give a little information on what has happened in the past. Pre-war Canadian exports to China were valued at $3.7 million annually and comprised timber and lumber products, pulp and paper, flour, fish, fertilizers, aluminum and other products. Last year China's purchases amounted to only $2.4 million, consisting of ammonium sulphate and phosphate fertilizers. The trade commissioner's purpose will be to determine whether possibilities exist for extending this trade in such products as wheat, paper, pulp, lumber, flour and fish.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister, if I may, arising out of the answer he gave the house of few minutes ago concerning emergency measures which in his consideration should be dealt with now, and then some other matters later. I wonder if he would indicate to the house, and particularly to the west which is most concerned about this, when some consideration might be given to participation by the federal government with the provinces in the construction of a highway to the lake Athabasca area.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, matters such as that, in connection with the national development policy, will receive consideration in due

course. This is but one of several projects in respect of which there has been consideration given in the past to co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. When and if we are in a position in the next few weeks to arrive at a definite arrangement or conclusion, then of course the house will be made aware of the situation.



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, October 31, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Monteith-Mr. Courte-manche in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act to increase the amount of monthly pensions payable thereunder to fifty-five dollars per month, to reduce the basic residence requirements for pensioners from 20 years to 10 years and to increase the length of permissible temporary absences of pensioners from Canada from three to six months.
Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I think we may have expected that this resolution would have passed before last night's adjournment. Since it did not, I take this opportunity of placing before the minister a question. I am doing so now because the answer may involve some statistical research over the next day or two. I am interested particularly in that part of the measure which deals with old age security recipients being able to go to another country and perhaps reside there if they choose to do so. I recognize that the measure is going to extend the period of time during which old age security recipients can be away from Canada from three months to six months. They can be away for six months one year, and if those are the last six months in the year they can be away six months in the following year. This would made an absence of a year. However, they cannot go away again then until the year following that.
We appreciate this extension of time, but I do believe it is not good enough. We have advocated on the floor of this house that if a person resides in Canada for the required length of time to become eligible for old age security and then finds it necessary to go away, he should still be able to leave the country and draw his old age pension.
To some that may not sound too reasonable, but to some of us it is most reasonable. I stated previously on the floor of the house that I had two specific cases which I think merit a good deal of consideration. One of those cases is that of a gentleman who, by reason of his health, apparently must live in
Old Age Security Act
England where he has relatives. This gentleman came to this country when he was a young man, farmed in this country and later set up business in a small community. He reached the age of 70 years and retired, but he retired on a very small amount of money after the sale of his small business and was obliged to go to England. He found that his health was much better there. However he returned again to Canada, desiring to settle once again, but his old malady came back again so he returned to England where he was free from it. The result, of course, was that his old age security pension was cut off.
The other case I have is similar. A gentleman came here in the early days, in the previous century, and homesteaded in Canada. He went through extremely difficult times. He went through the hungry thirties, and in those years he was forced to sell his farm. However, he managed to scrape through. He became 70 years of age, was in receipt of the pension and went back to his old home town in the United States. It so happened that he married there and that his wife did not see fit to come back to Canada. He therefore went to reside there. He has no income apart from the income he may have received from his old age security pension, but it was cut off.
It seems to me that in such cases that treatment is unjust. The man had lived here, had put in his life here, had done something for the country, and yet he finds that he cannot be in receipt of his old age security pension. The situation is accentuated now more than ever because the recipient of old age security pension has been paying into the old age security fund into which we all are obliged to pay. I therefore say that we should extend the provisions of the act to include all those who wish to reside in other countries.
There is another argument I have, and it is this. Under the British pension scheme old age pensioners, after they receive their pension, can come to Canada and live here and the British government still pays their old age pension while they are living here. I want the minister to consider making a further amendment to enable people to receive their pensions even though they live in some other country. The number of those who would leave the country is nominal, I am sure. Most aged people who have put in their lives here, have established their homes here and whose families are here would remain in Canada except in the case of some extenuating circumstances.
My question to the minister is this, and perhaps he would answer it at a later date. I do not expect him to have the figures at

Old Age Security Act his finger tips. I should like to know how many recipients of old age security have been cut off from their pensions by reason of going to some other country to live. I think the figures would be almost infinitesimal compared to the over-all picture. For the life of me I do not see why they are cut off. I would ask the minister to consider that part of the act and bring down those figures for the enlightenment of the house.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, may I just say we have been asking for this same thing for a long time, as have many members on all sides of the house.


Ernest George Hansell: As a matter of fact I think that some of the Conservative members recommended it when they sat over there on the other side.


Major James William Coldwell: That is right. I want to reinforce the argument with regard to the payment of the pension. It is true that the people who are receiving it today are not yet paying a very substantial premium. However, they are paying a premium, and it is therefore paid as of right. But the younger people who are paying sales tax and 2 per cent income tax will, by the time they reach 65 or 70, have paid a substantial premium indeed on an annuity, and they should have it as of right.
The other day, as a matter of fact, I was reading a debate that took place in this house in 1936. The hon. gentleman can look it up. It was on an unemployment measure. Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was speaking and he introduced this very matter in that speech. He said that recently he had been in the Antipodes-and I use his own word. He said that down there a feeling prevailed that there should be some reciprocity between the various members of the commonwealth such as, for example, New Zealand and Canada.
I am not asking for that reciprocity because I think this should be as of right, but at least in the commonwealth recognition should be given to residence outside. I would go beyond that, of course, and say that a senior citizen should be allowed to reside wherever he or she chooses to reside when the pension is payable. But in any event, even Mr. Bennett as long ago as 1936 spoke of his visit to the Antipodes and the necessity for some arrangement within the commonwealth countries. I thought I would bring that matter to the attention of the minister.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the government house leader last week cleared the air here to a considerable extent when he made the point that everyone in all parties seemed to agree with the principle of old age pensions, and that he felt we should


be ready to leave the stage where each party is trying to muscle in for its share of the credit or in some cases for all the credit.
In addition, it seems to me that there is quite a large measure of agreement that the scheme threshed out by the 1950 committee and the subsequent legislation have been generally satisfactory. I refer to this idea of the universal scheme, semi-contributory and largely pay as you go. But the key point that bothers me, as the representative of a number of constituents, is the individual sum of money to be paid now or in the future.
I should like to preface my remarks on this matter with two qualifications. The first is a party one. We in this movement feel that there should be an over-all social security program in detail and well thought out, of which old age pensions is only one important facet. Second-and this is more immediate to me as the representative of a constituency-most of my correspondence since June 10, roughly about 75 per cent of it, has dealt with old age pensions, and the key to that correspondence is, "How much?".
People generally seemed to be enraged at the idea of $46 a month. They were thrilled but were not very hopeful at the idea of $100 a month. Most of them seem to feel that somewhere between $65 and $75 would be an ideal figure. Is it possible to get a just pension scheme and set it on some sliding scale that will remove this topic from political promise and counterpromise?
As politicians we should be aware of how fine a thing it would be if we could take this particular issue right out of political controversy.
For example, I imagine the Liberals felt that Mr. Harris with his $46 was being politically courageous, but now they are probably wondering whether he was politically astute. None of us should really want to continue this game of what I call the high-low split. On the face of it the electorate chose the group which had the mystery hole card but that hole card of course has now been revealed to be $55 per month.
The minister who introduced the $55 a month did not state clearly that that was the final figure of his party. He did tell us at page 385 of Hansard that by approving this increase the parliament of Canada will be setting the benefit for our senior citizens at the highest level, both in dollar terms and purchasing power, that it has ever been in the 30-year history of old age pensions in this country. I have looked at the chart which he was kind enough to show me and have compared it with some dominion bureau

of statistics figures and that statement certainly seems to be true. But the minister went on to say:
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.
This government does not believe that it should try to make a good fellow of itself with the taxpayers' money-
He is changing the tone a little here. The government is not going to be spendthrift with the taxpayers' money. Well, I do not think anyone in this house is going to disagree with these points. We do not want the government to be good fellows with the taxpayers' money and we do want just and fair treatment, but what is the equitable basis in terms of the actual sum these people should get?
The minister went on to make reference to other countries and made comparisons that showed, in relation to the United States and I believe Britain, that we are doing very well or are going to do very well. I noticed in reading back through the speeches of the former minister of health that this was one of his favourite methods, to make a comparison with other countries. I have always felt that there is very little point in such an argument to the old age pensioners themselves. It reminds me of a cook in our regiment who, every time we complained about his cooking, used to say "You think this is bad, but you should have seen what it was like in the last regiment I was in." That is no consolation.
I would like to see if we could get to the point of whether this 1949 figure of $40 was fair at that time. I would like to see the minister table that information in Hansard, and with it I would appreciate it if he would place in another column the figures of the gross national product in those particular years. I would like to know whether the $55 pension is really fair now and whether the government has any means of proving to us or arguing that it is fair. I would like to know whether we should have a flexible pension tied to the cost of living index.
If we could obtain this information exactly we would have a start, because that is the figure which is fundamental in any scale that is sliding. Would a flexible pension tend to freeze our fiscal policy? I think we should find out something about that. The argument of this particular party has been that the pension should be related to the gross national product.
Well, in summing up all these questions I really do not know what should be the exact figure in order to be fair, but I do feel that
Old Age Security Act
it should be higher than $55 per month in view of the pleas of my constituents, and I feel that consideration should be given to the gross national product aspect. I would be the last one to suggest the appointment of another commission, but I would like to see some sort of consideration given to how we can arrive at a just figure to take this whole question of the old age pension figure out of electioneering.
Maybe I am being naive and it should be left in so we could go around playing this kind of game and shouting out the highest or the lowest or the mystery number, but I do think we should try eventually to take this figure out of electioneering.
In conclusion I would like to say that I am most interested in the fact that a social development is taking place with respect to our old age pensioners very much the same as is taking place in the case of teenagers. They seem to be moving out of the family circle or the sort of vertical line within the family and congregating among themselves in various homes, clubs and associations. They are obviously becoming a very powerful pressure group. I think this is good. It seems to me that people with a common interest should form themselves into a pressure group, but we are becoming more and more aware of their power and the sooner we can give this pressure group which, is you might say, improving its pitch, a figure which is generally accepted as being just and fixed to some sort of scale, the better off we will be and the better off they will be.
One last remark in relation to the speech of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. In my particular constituency I would say over half the population has some kind of root in Europe, especially in Finland. I do not know what the general view would be of an ethnic group coming to Canada, making a tremendous contribution in terms of work and development of the backwoods, yet retaining its native language and its ties with the old country. Personally I cannot look down my nose at them for that. I think they have made perhaps the most solid contribution of any group in our area, but many of these people, because they have kept their ties and because they can speak perfect Finnish, do go back to Finland in their old age.
Under the present arrangements we cannot pay their pension, and that is therefore a factor against them. I would support all the other arguments which have been advanced urging that we should wipe out this classification, and I certainly agree that we should obtain figures on how many people

Old Age Security Act
have been affected by the movement of old age pensioners out of Canada in the past.


Frank Claus Christian: I rise at this time, Mr. Chairman, to speak to this resolution. I would first of all confine myself to the increase of the amount of the old age pension from $46 per month to $55 per month. I am particularly concerned with this problem because I come from the Okanagan Boundary area to which I referred the other day as the California of Canada. We have in that area a large number of old age pensioners who live there because of the beautiful nature of the country and because of its very mild climate.
As members of this house we have no information before us with respect to why the government specifically decided upon the amount of $55 per month. In this house on October 29 I asked a question of the Minister of Finance as to whether the tax revenue of the government in the next 12 months would be equal to or greater than the government's tax revenue in the past 12 months. I did not receive an answer, but the reason I asked that particular question was in order to gain information to help me decide what the specific amount of the old age security pension should be. There is to my knowledge no information at the present time as to how the government decided the amount should be $55 a month.
I think information should be given, particularly to the younger members of this house, as to why that particular amount was decided upon. Why should it not be $60 a month? Personally I would like to see that amount be $60 a month. I realize, of course, that this government has many other responsibilities and that many heavy burdens are cast upon it, but I would like to receive some reasonable answer from the minister as to why this particular amount was decided on. I presume the government takes in sufficient revenue to pay $60 a month? I presume the government's tax revenues are sufficient for this purpose. Let me put it as a question. Are the government's tax revenues sufficient to enable it to pay the old age pensioners the sum of $60 a month? That is the first point I wish to bring to the attention of the committee.
With regard to the second item in the resolution, relating to reducing the period of residence from 20 years to 10 years, I consider this to be a progressive step indeed.
I was surprised personally that the government had been able to reduce the period of residence to this extent. I feel, as does the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that there should be some restriction as to residence, because after all the people of this

country who worked hard to bring about this development, the people who have resided in this country for a number of years, are the ones who should participate in the benefits of old age security. I shall not deal with this point further because I think the government has taken the right course in this regard.
However, I would like to raise a third point which deals with the temporary absence of pensioners from Canada, absences of between three and six months. Under the Old Age Security Act provision is made in section 5, subsection 1, statutes of Canada, 1951 (2nd session) 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.
That provision has the effect of penalizing the pensioner, and this government did at least see the wisdom of increasing the permitted period of temporary absence from Canada from three months to six months. In that respect, however, I do not feel the government has gone far enough, and I think the best way to explain my point would be by reading from correspondence which has come to my attention. I would like the facts of this matter to be on record in Hansard.
I received a letter, the original of which I have, from an old lady in Cascade, British Columbia. I shall not read it all, but I shall read the relevant part. It is from Mr. and Mrs. J. A. Bertois, dated September 5, 1957, and it reads as follows:
We are old pioneers here, "old and sick people" now, so would like to ask your advice and your help. Mr. Bertois is 84, November 1-lived here 64 years at Cascade. I am 77 November 27 and have lived here 59 years last March. We have been in many businesses and have paid a lot of taxes. I got my back hurt in a car accident last fall, so I can't take care of my invalid husband alone any longer. He has had hardening of the
arteries for 12 years-getting worse every year_
and now can't take a step alone, and with my bad back I can't hold him up. So I want to ask you and the government if you could arrange some way to let us live with our daughter in Los Angeles permanently-
The word "permanently" is underlined.
-and our pension cheques-
Those words, too, have been underlined.
-mailed to us there. That would be heavenly for us.
There were rumours that such arrangements would be made, or should be made, so very old pensioners could go and let the children take care of their old and sick parents.

Then later on I received a further letter from the same lady at Cascade, dated September 14, 1957, in which she said:
Your very kind letter and copy was received, but now we have had real bad news. Mr. E. A. McGovern, our son in law at 1148 South Plymouth, Los Angeles, California, was in a car accident and the following day died in the veterans' hospital at Los Angeles and is now buried. Why this terrible thing should happen, God only knows.
Now our dear daughter is alone and needs us, as much as we need her, so as soon as we can possibly get lined up we must go to her. Our daughter is a Vancouver General hospital graduate, R.N. also a United States R.N. So she is such a help and comfort to us in dear dad's sickness, and now she also needs us to comfort her.
Mr. Chairman, I was very much pleased when I read of the resolution which was passed by the senior citizens' association of British Columbia at its fourth annual convention held on June 3 and 4, 1957. This was the resolution:
Resolved that this convention of the senior citizens' association of British Columbia requests the federal government to amend the Old Age Security and Old Age Assistance Acts to make it possible for the pensioner to receive his pension in any country in the world.
I appreciate that steps are being taken to improve the situation so far as temporary absences are concerned, but I feel it should be a matter of right that our older citizens should have that individual freedom to which they are entitled, and that in the latter days of their lives they should be able to reside wherever they please and wherever they can receive the greatest comfort and attention. I therefore bring this matter respectfully to the attention of the government and express the hope that they will consider what can be done.
All hon. members will agree, I am sure, that it is most important we should pay fair and realistic pensions to the senior citizens of this country.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, 1 am sure it is a pleasure for me to speak on this resolution regarding old age pensions. There are a few points I would like to bring out in support of this bill. Surely none of us would deny the maximum amount of assistance to these old people, in keeping with the ability of this country to pay.
Let us examine a few of the facts. First, the savings of the great majority of these people have been severely deflated over the last several years, necessitating, the depletion of the purchasing power of these savings. The other observation I would make is that those savings were compiled when they had to work a 10-hour day six days a week to earn as much as is earned in an hour today. All of this we have to consider, and
Old Age Security Act
we should realize, too, that those people laid the foundation for what we are enjoying in this great country today.
That fact, I believe, was partially expressed or conceded by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano when he suggested that the government had perhaps not taken this fact fully into account when it provided a 15 per cent increase.
Now let us take a look at the housing and food factors. Since 1950 food has increased 22 per cent in price; housing has increased 36 per cent. Our proposed increase is 37J per cent, which allows us a little leeway, and only a very little, I admit, to look after the loss through deflation of those senior citizens' savings. So I believe our legislation has been realistic. I am sure all of us on this side of the house feel it is not enough, but economic factors must also be taken into consideration.
Furthermore, I have this to add. More of us will be living to 70 which is the life expectancy now for children born in this era, and it necessarily follows that we will have an ageing population on our hands. It also follows that more of these people will necessarily be employed in the older age groups than ever before.
I must say a few words on the cutting down of the residence from 20 years to 10 years as applied to immigrants to this country. I think that is a very necessary move, and I believe anyone who opposes this has lost sight of a very basic factor in that the great majority of those people will be healthy, young people right at the start of their working careers. Some of them will be skilled, others will not be, but let us consider this fact. We have put no care or costs into these people. We have paid them no baby bonuses. We have paid no hospitalization, no medical fees, nor payments for education for their bread and butter from the time they were born. We did not even pay for the mother's hospitalization or prenatal care.
As a matter of fact we are being handed a large sum of money already invested in those people, and this sum is estimated at from $20,000 to $200,000, depending upon the skill and training of these people. For those very few who come in under other circumstances- and there will be a few-we would be just as far ahead to give them this pension as to look after them in form of relief.
In conclusion may I say we have approached this Old Age Assistance Act with sympathy, realistically looking at all the factors that have to do with this legislation under consideration at the present time.

Old Age Security Act


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, is the minister not going to answer the questions that were put to him with regard to this resolution before its carries? There were two that I should like to remind him of particularly. The first was the question of gearing the old age security to the cost of living, and the second was the more sordid question, let us say, of what measures the government is going to take so there will be some measure of equilibrium between the payments out of the old age security fund and the contributions made to it through the three taxes: sales tax, income tax and corporation tax.


Mr. Leboe:: I have one or two very brief observations to make before the minister replies. There has been some discussion here this morning with respect to arriving at a particular figure for social assistance, which includes this resolution which we have before us. I would like to suggest that in arriving at a figure of social assistance in respect of any of these matters the total amount of consumer goods available in Canada, taking into account our productivity and our ability as individuals to consume goods and services, would give us a sound basis on which we could judge whether we can pay so much here or so much there, because in our opinion if it is going to be continually based on dollars and cents we shall not arrive at a basis of the amount of goods and services we actually have available to divide amongst our people in a way which will give our senior citizens the standard of living they require.
I have a question which I would like the minister to answer before he concludes. Does the government consider that the earmarking of tax revenue, so far as the sales tax is concerned, constitutes a contribution on the part of the individual? Frankly I do not think it does. If the tax is earmarked for any specific purpose that, to my mind, is the earmarking of the tax and is not necessarily a contribution. We pay taxes, and if the government sees fit to earmark those taxes then they are earmarked, and cannot be considered necessarily a contribution.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount inquired whether the minister was going to answer some questions, as I did last night. Is it his intention to answer the questions?


Mr. Monteith:: I wanted to make sure there were no more.
I intimated last night, Mr. Chairman, that I thought this resolution should be carried so we would get the bill in our hands and give it close examination on second reading and at the committee stage. I still think that


is correct. However, a couple of questions were asked this morning and I will answer them specifically.
Last night the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount referred to a report in the Toronto Daily Star of April 25 concerning a speech made by the Prime Minister in Toronto and said, as reported at page 625 of Hansard:
I therefore want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, the fact that there were three points in this promise. First, the payments would be high enough to meet the needs of the recipients. Second, the payments would be adjusted from time to time to keep pace with increases in the cost of living. Third, the payments would be geared to national productivity.
Well, if I might point out, Mr. Chairman, we are raising the pension to $55 monthly and that, in our judgment, constitutes a fair and reasonable level of benefit at the present time. It will be sufficient in our judgment, together with the other means that most pensioners have at their disposal, to provide a decent minimum level of living for most pensioners.
In raising the pension to $55 a month we are increasing it to a figure 37.5 per cent in excess of the $40 level which prevailed at the first of the year. The cost of living index, by comparison, has risen only 23 per cent since 1949, and only 5 per cent since 1952 when old age security payments commenced.
In raising the pension to $55 a month we are in fact increasing it to keep in step with national productivity. This was the third of the points referred to by the hon. member last night in his remarks concerning the Prime Minister's speech. Here are the facts and figures in support of my contention, Mr. Chairman. In 1952, when old age security began, the gross national product was $23i billion. In 1957 it had risen to an estimated $30.8 billion, according to latest figures. This increase amounts to 32.4 per cent, and during the same period the increase in pension level amounts to 37.5 per cent.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this shows clearly that on the three points referred to in the Prime Minister's speech we have met our commitment. One, we have raised pensions by this proposal to a fair and reasonable level. Two, we have adjusted it by these proposals for the cost of living increase since old age security began. Three, we have adjusted by these proposals for the increase in national productivity as reflected in the gross national product since old age security began in 1952.
I think this question was asked. What did I think of the fund raised by the 2-2-2 formula? I personally do not consider it a contributory scheme, certainly not in the full

sense of the word. I know there are arguments for and against, but the amount required each year has never been met by that formula. The amount has varied. The last complete picture is, I think, that it did come fairly close to meeting it prior to the recent rise and the one proposed right now; but actually, because of the demand on the consolidated revenue fund, I have not considered this actually was a fully contributory scheme.
If there are any other specific questions at the moment I will answer them, but I still think it would be advisable to get the bill and proceed with second reading.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is it my hon. friend's intention to proceed with the bill today, or does he intend to proceed with the resolution respecting old age assistance?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have three other resolutions before we come back to second reading of this measure.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what I understood. I do not want to press my hon. friend if he feels that all these questions will be dealt with on the bill and that we will be free to ask questions-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -on all matters whether, or not they are included in the bill-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Now, just a minute.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has raised a very important question in his remarks. He said, for instance, that as far as he personally is concerned he does not believe in the formula that was recognized in 1951 by the parliamentary committee.-


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, I did not say that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -because it was not fully a contributory scheme. The committee and the government of the day never suggested for one moment that the scheme was fully contributory. It was contributory, as the present Minister of Finance has repeatedly indicated in previous discussions in the house, in the only way it could be if we were to have a universal scheme.
At least one of the schemes in the United States, the superannuation scheme, is a fully contributory plan and, as I said the other day, it has a lot to commend it. But the difficulty is that it only reaches a segment of the population. There is no way of having a universal scheme other than the partial feature of contribution that we have in our scheme, a scheme which the Minister of National Health and Welfare knows was supported by all
Old Age Security Act
groups in the house. But he has said today that he does not consider this scheme to be fully satisfactory.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I said I did not consider it to be fully contributory.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Fully contributory; my hon. friend is quite correct in that, and I take back what I said. I think it is only fair to point out in this connection that the level of the pension provided in the amendment, and which has been accepted in all sections of the house, does not necessarily represent the suggestions made by hon. gentlemen opposite as to what the pension really should be. We have been told by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska that he did not consider the level provided in the amendment satisfactory. The minister has said that after careful consideration of all the facts involved, including undoubtedly budgetary intentions, the likelihood of early acceptance of hospital insurance and considerations of that sort, the level proposed in the bill is satisfactory, and it was for that reason that the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount thought there ought to be some consideration given and a statement made by the government of its over-all intentions so we could ascertain whether or not this did represent, in the light of the government's obligations, the most satisfactory amount. However, maybe the minister will deal with this question later.
If the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska is not satisfied with the present level, I am sure there are several hon. gentlemen sitting behind the Minister of National Health and Welfare who likewise will not be satisfied with the measure. I have before me, for instance, an advertisement which appeared in the June 6 issue of the Antigonish Casket which suggests, among other things, that a vote for Angus D.D., present parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport, will see a satisfaction and a realization of benefits in the social welfare field not now provided.
Some hon. gentlemen opposite and to my immediate left have been talking about a higher amount, $60, $75, and some of them have suggested the desirability, instead of having this competition, of finding some standard by which this question could be removed from politics and would not be dealt with on the basis of engaging in the kind of carpentry, to use the Prime Minister's language, that has characterized activities in the past. But I am sure no hon. member of the house is on record as advocating a pension at the level proposed by the new, distinguished and amiable member for Antigo-nish-Guysborough.

Old Age Security Act
I have before me this advertisement. On one side is a picture of the Prime Minister, and it is a good picture. I am glad to see that he is in a happy mood today. Then there is a very good picture of the member, too. Undoubtedly both these photographic representations, not entirely true to life, had their effect in making possible the election to parliament of the hon. member for Antigo-nish-Guysborough. But here is one of the reasons urged by the hon. gentleman for his election. He says:
If you vote for Angus D. D.-
I compliment my hon. friend upon the ingenuity of his political perception in using the name "Angus". It obviously has a very catching, engaging and absorbing quality in the province from which he comes. My hon. friend says:
If you vote for Angus D. D. you will get his pledge of fairness and firmness in all matters-
I am sure that is true. I am sure my hon. friend is fair and I am sure he is firm.
*-his pledge to voice the problems of his constituents and co-operate fully with the Progressive Conservative new deal for the provinces, a policy which will ensure Nova Scotia a share in Canada's development-
This is the significant part of this enticing advertisement.
-his pledge to support a program of living standard old age pensions and old age assistance upwards of $100 and corresponding increases in all other pensions and social security benefits.
That was the statement he made and, as the Prime Minister has said, a promise made by a political figure is something that must be respected. Indeed, Sir Robert Borden said that possibly there ought to be some sort of rule which precluded making promises that have the effect of winning electoral support when there really cannot be an intention to carry out those promises. In any event the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough cannot be fully satisfied with the proposals that are made. He may feel, of course, that this is a beginning.


The Chairman:: May I remind the hon.
member that he should deal with the resolution under discussion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am discussing the resolution. We are dealing with a proposal made by the government to amend an act introduced by the previous government, we are entitled to ask whether or not the proposal now before the house represents the assurances that were given to the people of Canada during the election campaign.
If we cannot discuss that during the resolution stage then I would be inclined to suggest, if your view were supported by the government, that it would be a serious

abridgment of debate which I know Your Honour would not really, on reflection, want to encourage. '


Henri Courtemanche: I agree with the hon. member, but I should like to refer him to standing order 59, subsection 2:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is precisely what I am doing. The clause under consideration is certain improvements in the Old Age Security Act.


Henri Courtemanche: I do not believe that
articles in newspapers can be termed the clause under consideration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not an
article in a newspaper. This is an advertisement used by one hon. member in this house in the course of the last election, addressed to his constituents, as a result of which undoubtedly he received much of the support which he did receive in that election.


Henri Courtemanche: The newspapers are not under discussion at the present time. The newspaper from which the hon. member is reading is not before the committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, you have just assumed the chair within the past few weeks, and I am not going to take advantage-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -I am not going to take a step that, in the situation, would be unfair to you. However, I submit to you with great confidence that the ruling you have now made is one that is certainly not within the rules of this house. The practice, and I am saying this to you with great respect, of this house is that at the stage in which we are now the widest measure of debate is permitted, and indeed in the past has taken place. Where else would one be given the opportunity of testing whether or not a particular program of the administration was consistent with the pledges it had made?
Last night we heard the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount, and we heard other hon. members in reply, as to whether or not the proposal now before us really did represent the kind of assurances that had been given by those who sit on your right. I am sure the Prime Minister, who has been in this house a long time, who is recognized as having deep appreciation of the rights of parliament, would strongly support what I have said.
So, Mr. Chairman, it may be that in talking about these pledges the hon. member

for St. Antoine-Westmount was on pretty firm ground. He indicated that the promise had been not only to increase the basic amount but to provide a formula by which the needs of the citizens of this country could be adjusted from time to time. We have, for instance, the telecast speech of the Prime Minister on May 22 in which he said, amongst other things, that he would also make provision for a formula whereby due allowance would be made in the future for the rising cost of living. What is that formula? My hon. friend, for the time being, seems to have established a good case in terms of relating the proposed benefit to the cost of living, just as it could be argued that the 15 per cent increase represented the increase in the cost of living from 1951 until the time of that increase.
Likewise the Prime Minister, in his election pledges, told us that payments would be geared to the national productivity. He told us also that a commission would be appointed to examine the superannuation scheme in the United States which works alongside a means test old age pension system. The hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount was merely pointing out, and I do not believe my hon. friend has properly answered the argument, that what has been done is not all that was promised. The Minister of National Health and Welfare should tell us, in order that we can ascertain exactly what the government has in mind, whether or not the adoption of this particular program means the postponement of other programs, programs which in their totality were very much in the minds of the previous government. For instance, the hospital insurance measure will be the greatest supplement to the old age pension.


An hon. Member:: You were 30 years at that one.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, it may have taken a long time, but the fact is that the previous government put the	hospital	insurance act	on	the
statute books. Does it mean, now, that this particular figure is arrived at with the possibility or with the intention of not having to pay out any moneys until 1959 under hospital insurance? Under that measure a very considerable amount of benefit would come to old age pensioners. Over 20 per cent of those who are recipients under the universal system would benefit as old age pensioners under the hospital insurance act and the kind of agreement that was in contemplation between the federal and provincial governments.
Old Age Assistance Act
Those are questions which have got to be considered. The minister is in charge of this bill, and I do not propose to press him unduly if it is clearly understood that when we come to the bill he will endeavour to deal with some of the questions I have mentioned and which other hon. members have brought to our attention. He will explain to us, perhaps, why the effective date is November 1 but these benefits will only be provided at the end of the month.


Jay Waldo Monteith: How could it be otherwise?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not complaining.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Be reasonable, now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has undoubtedly used the effective date of the first of the month, as we did, to give a full month's benefit to the recipients, and by making the effective date November 1, even if the bill is not passed until after November 1, recipients will get the full benefit for a whole month. If that is the intention I commend my hon. friend. All we were trying to do was to-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Let us have a look at the bill and the hon. member will find out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My friend says let us look at the bill. That is the very thing we wanted to do, and the information was denied us in this house and given elsewhere by the Prime Minister.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Monteith thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 19, to amend the Old Age Security Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the house go into committee on the next resolution before I call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are anxious to co-operate.



OLD AGE ASSISTANCE ACT


Jay Waldo Monteith: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Assistance Act to increase to fifty-five dollars per month the maximum amount of assistance in respect of which payments may be made to the provinces under the provisions of that act, to reduce the basic residence requirement
668	HOUSE OF
Old Age Assistance Act for recipients from 20 years to 10 years and to increase the total amount of allowable income, inclusive of assistance, 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.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, the resolution preceding the introduction of the amendments proposed to the Old Age Assistance Act includes three main points. They are as follows:
1.	A proposal to share with the provinces, if they agree, a further increase of the maximum amount of old age assistance bringing the figure to $55 monthly, the same as for old age security.
2.	A proposed reduction in the basic residence requirement from 20 to 10 years.
3.	A proposed increase in the income ceilings covering both the assistance payable and the amount of outside income by $120 annually in the case of unmarried recipients and $240 annually in the case of recipients of married status.
The considerations which prompted the government to propose the first two of these three changes are almost exactly the same as those which were discussed in connection with the resolution on the Old Age Security Act amendments. I do not propose to repeat the arguments which I advanced in that debate. I might point out however that there are obvious advantages in terms of administrative efficiency and convenience to the recipients in having the pension payable under old age assistance before the age of 70 identical with that paid after 70. Certainly if it is desirable to raise the benefits under old age security to $55, and we all agree that it is, we can hardly do less for old age assistance recipients between the ages of 65 and 70, all of whom by definition are in need of assistance to a greater extent than many of those in receipt of old age security.
A comparison of the maximum amount of old age assistance now proposed with that paid in other countries shows that the Canadian level of benefits once these changes have been approved will be higher than those of every other country except the United States and will not lag far behind the rates payable in that country. United States legislation with respect to old age assistance provides for federal sharing of state administered old


age assistance payments, paid on a means test basis, up to a maximum of $60 monthly. In fact, because of the means test the actual average payments amount to less than $60 a month. There were actually 15 state or territorial jurisdictions which in June 1957 were making average assistance payments of less than $50 monthly while eight were in the $50 to $55 range and 30 were in excess of $55.
I mention these figures as they apply to the United States in order that we may all have a clear understanding as to where we stand in comparison with our neighbour to the south. With the exceptions I have noted in respect to some of the individual states the new $55 maximum proposed for Canada compares favourably with anything to be found in other jurisdictions.
I should of course add that while the federal government is asking parliament to authorize these changes in our joint federal-provincial program of old age assistance, the provincial governments will in the final analysis be the ones to decide whether or not these changes are to be made in their respective jurisdictions. No changes in old age assistance can be made effective in any province except as and when the province itself may decide. We are however making it clear to the provinces by the proposed amended legislation that, so far as the federal government is concerned, we are prepared with parliament's approval to amend the existing federal-provincial agreements and to share henceforth in the cost of a maximum $55 assistance payment.
The second change proposed in the Old Age Assistance Act has to do with the reduction of the residence requirement from 20 to 10 years. There is nothing I need to add on this subject to what I said when we were considering an identical proposal for the Old Age Security Act. The arguments and the considerations are identical. I might just add that we have already received representations from at least one province, Ontario, urging this reduction to 10 years and we have every reason to believe that the change will be acceptable to the other provinces as well.
The third change proposed for old age assistance relates to the income ceilings provided under the act. Since this is a means test program certain limits must be placed on the amount of income and resources which an applicant can have without reduction of the amount of assistance payable to him. For every dollar of income in excess of the permitted amount a corresponding reduction is made in the amount of assistance paid.
The increase of $9 monthly, or $108 yearly, in the amount of assistance payable necessitates a corresponding adjustment in the

overall income ceilings. If this were not done many of those in receipt of modest amounts of outside income would not receive the full benefit of the increase which is proposed. It is for this reason that the government has decided to propose an increase of $120 annually in the income ceiling for unmarried recipients and an increase of $240 annually in the ceiling for married recipients.
I come now to the financial implications of these three proposals. I must be frank in admitting that these are difficult to assess with accuracy for a number of reasons. The first of these is that despite the growing numbers of our population in the age brackets 65 to 70 the experience in the last few years has been that the old age assistance rolls have not risen in proportion. There has in fact been a decline from 94,625 in March, 1955 to 88,887 in June of this year.
Some slight increase has resulted from the changes made in the early part of this year but with other programs such as war veterans allowances, disability or blindness allowances and unemployment insurance, providing alternative benefits for many persons in the age group 65 to 70, it becomes increasingly difficult to estimate how many additional persons may qualify for old age assistance as a result of alterations in the rate of benefit or in the income ceilings. At the present time there are approximately 90,000 persons in receipt of old age assistance in the provinces and territories.


Paul Joseph James Martin: How many is that?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Approximately 90,000. All these will qualify for the full increase of $9 per month and the increased costs on this count alone will amount to about $9| million per annum. In addition, some increase in case-load is anticipated as a result of the higher rate of benefits, the increase in income ceilings and the reduction in the residence requirement. Possibly this will mean an additional 5,000 cases a month; if so, the cost of these would be an additional $3.3 million as a maximum.
Summing up, therefore, it may be anticipated that old age assistance costs will rise as a result of these amendments by approximately $13 million which is in a full fiscal year. Half of this sum or $6.5 million will be a federal responsibility; the rest will be a charge upon the provincial treasuries.
May I say a word in conclusion about the position of the provincial government in this matter. We have, of course, notified all the governments concerned of the proposals that we are laying before parliament as embodied in these resolutions. We shall send them copies of the bill for their consideration at
Old Age Assistance Act the earliest possible moment, that is to say as soon as it has been introduced and given first reading in this house.
The federal government fully recognizes that in amending its own legislation, the federal Old Age Assistance Act, it cannot and does not legislate for the provinces. It can only indicate in this way to the provinces what it is prepared to do. The provinces must in their turn decide, each one in the light of its own position, the extent to which they can incorporate into their provincial legislation and program the changes and improvements in which the federal government, through these amendments, is announcing its readiness to share.
If all ten provinces decide to implement these changes, and there can be no certainty of that until they have had the time to consider the matter, the added burden on the provincial treasuries will amount to about $6 million a year. They will also have to bear their share of any increases under disability and blindness allowances. It may take a little time for all the provinces to consider their position and come to a decision with respect to these three acts. It may also be necessary in one or two jurisdictions to effect changes in provincial legislation before these improvements can be legally made effective. New agreements with all the provinces will be required; this alone can mean as many as 36 new agreements-three each with the 10 provinces and two territories.
The committee can be assured that the federal government will expedite by all the means at its disposal the conclusions of the necessary agreements. That is why we have provided in the bill for an effective date November 1, 1957. But the position of the provinces, and the problems, financial and other, which the federal legislation poses for them should not be minimized. They should be clearly understood, and it should be recognized that the provinces will require a reasonable amount of time to come to their decisions and to make the necessary policy and administrative decisions in the matter. I am sure the committee will recognize the fairness of this position.
I think that is about all I need to say at this stage, Mr. Chairman. I shall be glad to deal with any points that may arise as the debate proceeds, to the best of my ability.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question. In his opening words he said that the pensions would be increased if the provinces would agree. If the provinces do not agree it appears that there will be no increase in pensions. Is
668	HOUSE OF
Old Age Assistance Act there any way of putting across this increase in pensions if the provincial governments do not agree?


Jay Waldo Monteith: If the hon. member had listened to my remarks more carefully he would have understood that this legislation is brought forward by the government to make it permissible for the provinces to participate in this increase.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I would naturally, I think, be expected to make a few remarks based on the statement we have just heard from the Minister of National Health and Welfare in the introduction of this particular amendment which, in fact, is an amendment to Bill No. 395 introduced in this parliament on June 23, 1951.
Of course I agree at once with what the minister has just said about our responsibility in relation to that which can be exercised by the provinces, and I am sure that it was only because the hon. member for Fort William sometimes suffers from a particular disability of hearing that he did not appreciate the point which was properly made by the minister when he said that acceptance of this measure and its availability to the public generally depended on agreement between the provinces on one hand and the federal government on the other, and the practice to which he has resorted in passing enabling legislation is a practice which we, when we were on this side of the house, always followed notwithstanding the criticisms made when old age pensions were first introduced, and that is that before the federal government embarked on any legislative enactments having to do with participation by the provinces, the latter should first of all have given their consent and enacted the necessary legislation. I agree with the practice which the hon. gentleman is pursuing in this particular instance.
This particular measure is, as I say, by way of amendment to an act introduced by the government headed by the right hon. gentleman who is now the Leader of the Opposition. That was in 1951, and it was part of a plan which had first been proposed in 1945 and considered later by the parliamentary committee which recommended that there should be a lowering of the pensionable age, the federal government assuming responsibility basically, pursuant to a constitutional amendment, for those aged 70 and over.
Now I think it is significant that in the very terms of the constitutional amendment itself the provinces were not turning over to the federal government full responsibility


for old age pensions but they were endowing the federal government with the necessary authority to impose contributions in respect of a particular program covering the group aged 70 and over, and I think that is very important because it has much to do with an argument that I am going to sug-get to the minister, that is that it would be most unfortunate if as a result of those amendments any provinces now paying supplementary payments were to take the position that in view of these increased benefits they were thereby relieved of any responsibility. I suggest to the minister, not without some reason, that that is a possibility he should look into, as I am sure he will, with the greatest care.
Now as a result of the act of June 23, 1951 parliament took a very important step. Hitherto pensions had been paid on the basis of co-operative financial participation between the federal government and provincial governments and once the federal government assumed responsibility within certain limits for over 800,000 people in this country aged 70 years and over it decided to lower the age for a particular group, but that the provinces and the federal government should share on a fifty-fifty basis the benefits provided under the Old Age Assistance Act, which provided for these benefits to be paid at the age of 65 instead of at the age of 70.
It is significant I think that up until 1951 over 800,000 Canadians have benefited under the Old Age Pensions Act which was made possible as the result of the cost being shared by the two senior levels of government.
It is worth recording that up to 1951 the federal and provincial governments had spent together $1,136 millions by way of assistance to the senior citizens of our country. I have checked these contributions up to date with contributions made on a proportional basis-a per capita basis-in the United States, to which the hon. gentleman properly made allusion a few moments ago, and it will be found that we have provided more assistance on a per capita basis to our older citizens, certainly up to 1951, than they have in the United States, out of contributions made by the taxpayers pursuant to policies carried out by the government.
Of this sum of $1,136 million which had been spent in the period before the introduction of the Old Age Assistance Act, federal expenditure alone amounted to $836 million, while provincial expenditures were in the neighbourhood of $300 million. Therefore, this amendment is based upon an act which came into effect after a very considerable contribution had been made by the

taxpayers, pursuant to government policy, to help the senior citizens of our country.
Now the Old Age Assistance Act, unlike the Old Age Security Act, apart altogether from supplementary payments, is now made possible, if accepted by the provinces, on a sharing basis with the latter. I think it is important at this stage that we should state that the operation and the administration of this act which presumably will, as in the past, be left to the provinces, require for proper administration regulations between the two senior levels of government, jointly entered into and jointly collaborated in.
I am going to suggest to my hon. friend that he will be confronted with the difficulty that I was confronted with so very frequently in this house when it was suggested that the regulations attending old age assistance were not mutually agreed upon but rather imposed on from the top. My hon. friend knows, of course, that that is not the case. The regulations in the past-and I am sure this will be true of the future-were the result of consideration by the two senior levels of government on equal terms, and at no conference that I ever participated in were any of these regulations at any time imposed from the top or from the provinces. They were the result of mutual argeement. Certainly the provinces which have to administer this act would naturally be expected to have a great deal to say and an important part to play in the administration, in the creation and in the formation of those particular regulations.
When the Old Age Assistance Act was introduced in 1951 for the 65 to 69 age group we intended to embrace almost one-third of the population in that age group. Our estimate at that time was that we were going to cover 145,000 persons but, as the minister has pointed out today by way of implication, we did not reach that figure. I think some 90,000 persons roughly were covered and as a result of these amendments undoubtedly further numbers will be added.
It is significant that prior to the introduction of the Old Age Assistance Act-and this has much to do with this act because of the increase in the permissible income ceiling- there were at least three different amendments made in the availability of permissible income. The basic amount had been increased. As a matter of fact, to indicate the scope of the contribution made by this measure one can note that the cost of old age pensions was doubled between 1947 and the date when the Old Age Assistance Act was first introduced.
"It is also significant that under the act to which my hon. friend now presents an
Old Age Assistance Act amendment not only had we previously increased the basic amount, not only had we liberalized the income ceilings but we had in the act of 1951, of which this is now an integral proposed part, taken some very important steps and made some very important changes. For instance, the residence requirements were liberalized; the requirement of citizenship was completely eliminated. That represented a very significant change. Hitherto it was based entirely upon citizenship and period of residence. In the act of 1951 that was removed and, as a matter of fact, all of our social measures now are not based upon national status but on the period of residence, and that had the effect of bringing in many thousands of people who came from other lands to participate in Canadian citizenship and all of the advantages which this country affords.
Now, the basic amount of $40, the qualifying law, the maintenance of an eligibility test are all embodied in the act of which the amendment offered by the hon. gentleman is a part and were all recommended by the parliamentary committee. It is significant that many hon. members who now sit on Mr. Chairman's right, complained bitterly when this act was introduced about the maintenance of the eligibility test. I use the phrase "eligibility test" to get away from the implications and the sinister quality of the old designation. But there are many hon. members sitting opposite who took a strong position in 1951 and who said that the act was made to appear very weak because it did not propose the abolition of the eligibility test. There were the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the former leader of the opposition. All of these men will be found to be on record as strongly taking the position that there should not be in this measure any eligibility test.
I merely mention that to indicate that what was the view of hon. gentlemen opposite at one time is apparently not the view which they entertain today. In the light of the serious and severe criticism that was carried on for many, many days in this house, I think it is important that one should recall the position taken now as compared with the position taken then.


Mr. McCleave:: Your view of the $6 has changed also.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend will find if he is in this house as long as I have been that one of the best ways to get along is to recognize that you have to change your views. I am sure that is one of the things my hon. friend will come to recognize and he will change his view as he looks

Old Age Assistance Act at the legislation that has been passed in this field by the preceding government. He will find that it is a record worthy of commendation and worthy of praise rather than the kind of criticism sometimes given to it.
Then in the act of 1951 we took another step; we eliminated the requirement of the recovery from the estates of deceased persons in so far as the federal government is concerned. I am sure my hon. friend is going to maintain that. We cannot control what the provinces do in that particular, but it is significant that we did make that change in the act. Then we introduced a new feature in the act of 1951 of which this amendment is a part. We gave to the Indians, to the native population of our country, the right to benefit, something that had not been done before.
We estimated the total cost of old age assistance in 1951 at about $64 million, shared equally by the two senior levels of government and I understood my hon. friend to estimate that the proposed amendments would add roughly another $13 million, to be shared equally by the two senior levels of government, bringing the total cost of old age assistance to somewhere between $75 million and $80 million.
So we can support this particular proposal in the knowledge that this is an amendment to an act which we introduced. Undoubtedly it has been made possible as the result of the minister's careful concept of the overall obligations having in mind, I sincerely hope-I know he will not mind my saying this-that this does not mean in any way any postponement or abridgment of the plan proposed by the previous government in the matter of hospital insurance.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should certainly like to set the record straight and assure the hon. member that that is the situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank my hon. friend. I think that is a very important announcement for him to make because, as he knows, it would be a matter of the greatest regret all over the country if the situation-


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have indicated that ever since I took office.


George Carlyle Marler: Rather obscurely.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I think in fairness to the Minister of National Health and Welfare I should mention that I did say in the house that when he took office he was the one member of the administration who had given a clear indication of his personal intentions in that regard. He will recall the statement I made several weeks ago that my complaint was that he was

the sole voice on behalf of the administration that gave any indication that the government intended to carry on vigorously the purposes and intentions embodied in the hospital insurance act. His statement now relieves us from any suspicion that what is now being done is in any way intended to be considered as postponing the day when Canadians generally will have the opportunity to participate in a nationwide hospital insurance scheme.
Of course the amendment now proposed does not deal, as the previous amendment did not deal, with certain assurances or certain promises, as the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount said last night, that were made in the election that not only would the basic amount be increased but there would be a formula provided to relate the pension to the cost of living. I want to say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that there has never been a refinement as to precisely what was meant by those assurances, and I think that if they are going to be realized there should be some guarantee given with respect to the great danger of a reduction in pension if there is a reduction in the cost of living.
An examination of social security measures in other countries based upon such a formula will show that in times of less need there have been reductions in social benefits away below the actual reduction in the cost of living itself. Therefore this formula which was dealt with on the basis of an assurance should be considered with great care. In any event, I take it that particular promise is not going to be recognized in this legislation. Likewise the assurance about relating payments or benefits to the gross national product is not being presented in this particular amendment.
We should keep in perspective what the over-all obligation of the government of Canada is in the whole matter of assistance to our senior citizens. Before the amendments introduced last spring in the budget of that time the federal government had committed the people of Canada to an expenditure of something like $400 million for old age security, including the contributions that the federal government was paying to the provinces under the Old Age Assistance Act. The increases provided at that time resulted in a total commitment of $460 million, and with the proposed amendments now our share of old age security will bring us to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $560 million. This is comparable with the amount of roughly $35 million now being spent by all ten of the provinces together apart from supplementary payments.

It is for this reason that I strongly suggest to the minister, having in mind the fact that the federal government bears a much greater share in this regard than all the provinces to the extent that I have indicated, $560 million as against $35 million, that it would be a matter for great regret in terms of the value of social measures if as a result of these amendments the provinces were now to seek to extricate themselves from some of the supplementary payment obligations into which some of them have projected themselves.
As I indicated the other day, there are five at least that do not make any supplementary payments. It would be unfortunate if this legislation meant that supplementary payments would not be continued or that discouragement would be given to provinces where there are no supplementary payments now because this amount will not take care of all cases of need. I am sure my hon. friend recognizes that is the case, and the only way in a country like ours by which individual cases of need can be met is by the provinces recognizing that they too have a responsibility in this matter. I am sure the hon. gentleman will find that we will give the bill the same sympathetic consideration as we have given its antecedent.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Chairman-


Henri Courtemanche: Order. The hon. member
for Regina City.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, in discussing
the resolution providing for the amendment of the Old Age Security Act I placed my views before the committee with regard to the amount of the increase, and I think the remarks I made at that time have a general application to other groups of pensioners. I would, however, take issue with the statement made by the minister just prior to adjournment for lunch that the amount of the increase is in line with the increase in Canada's gross national product. He placed figures on record indicating that the increase in pension takes care of the increase in the cost of living. No one is disputing that fact, but I think if the minister will look into the matter he will find that while it may compensate for the increase in the cost of living it falls short of meeting the percentage increase in our gross national product.


Jay Waldo Monteith: From 1952 on it does;
maybe not from 1949.


Alfred Claude Ellis: However, that is a matter that
can be left to some future occasion. The C.C.F. party's approach to the question of old age assistance can be generally summed up by our belief that the age limit of those in receipt of old age security should be lowered
Old Age Assistance Act to age 65. If that were done we would not now be faced with the situation described by the minister where he has no assurance or guarantee that certain provinces are going to enter into agreements with the federal government to provide for a pension of $55 to recipients of old age assistance.
The situation we are likely to find in the immediate future is that the amount of old age assistance will vary from one part of the country to the other. I feel that all our senior citizens, irrespective of the province of residence, should be given equal treatment. I realize that the minister can point the finger at a specific province and say the province did not fulfil its obligation and that is the reason why some of our senior citizens are not accorded the same treatment as their fellow Canadians are in some other part of the country.
At this point I might say I was quite surprised to hear the hon. member for Essex East express a great deal of concern over the question of supplementary allowances. I think it would be much more advisable for him to express a little more concern about those provinces that do not give any supplementary allowance. I suggest his great concern over the provinces who grant supplementary allowances is because of the fact that there is not a single Liberal province in the dominion which has given or is now giving any supplementary allowance to the recipients of old age pensions. I would suggest the hon. member for Essex East should go to work on the few remaining Liberal provinces, while there are still a few remaining, to convince them it may be well to play fair with the old age pensioners residing within those provinces.
I noted that in the remarks made in a previous debate one Liberal member suggested that the provinces were not making the same contribution as was the federal government. I think he overlooked the fact that the provincial governments are much closer to the problems of our senior citizens. They are charged with the responsibility of providing medical care; they are charged with the responsibility of providing suitable housing and satisfying other basic requirements. This is a field in which the province is concerned. I know that in my own province the amount which we spend as our share of the payments under the Old Age Assistance Act is only a part of the amount which the provincial government spends in the care of our senior citizens.
As a matter of fact on September 25 I had the great pleasure of attending the opening of our new geriatric and rehabilitation centre in the city of Regina. This is an

Old Age Assistance Act indication of the sort of thing that is being done by some provincial governments and, of course, that is over and above any money they spend in providing assistance under the Old Age Assistance Act. This new geriatric centre was built at a total cost of over $2,133,000 and has provision for 293 guests. It has a staff of around 130, including the superintendent, 20 registered nurses, 56 nursing assistants and the other staff members required to operate a home of that kind.
The provincial government has undertaken this work because they feel it is necessary that the legitimate needs of our senior citizens be met. I am very sorry that we have not been able to go much farther in this field. I think perhaps the provincial government could devote its energy toward the provision of care of this kind because there are so many of our senior citizens who do not have homes, whose families are not living in this country or perhaps are unable to provide for them the sort of care that is necessary. I suggest, therefore, when the federal government is bringing in an amendment of this kind they should take into consideration the fact that the provincial governments-I am not saying all provincial governments to an equal degree or measure -have been doing a great deal in this direction. I feel that this work should be continued.
I feel that the amendment now before us, which carries on the old arrangement whereby the cost of old age assistance is to be borne jointly by the federal and provincial governments, does not take into account sufficiently what is being done by the provincial governments toward the care of our senior citizens. If the government insists on taking care of the 65 to 69 age group in this manner, then it ought to face up to some of its responsibilities in other fields.
Some reference has been made to the hospital plan. There is no doubt that the coming into force of that plan, which I presume is a step towards a comprehensive health insurance plan, will be of some assistance. But in the province of Saskatchewan we have been waiting year after year for the federal government to do something. We feel that as a province we are ready to go ahead with the hospital plan now. I should like very much to see this government take the necessary steps in order that Saskatchewan and any other province that is ready may enter into an agreement to bring the plan into effect as of January 1 next. That is one positive way in which the federal government could discharge, in part, some of its responsibilities towards those in the 65


to 69 age group, apart from the contribution they are making under this proposed amendment.
Again, there is the provision of housing for our senior citizens. While I realize there is a limited amount of assistance provided under federal legislation, the bulk of the cost of building homes for our senior citizens rests with the provincial governments, with the municipalities and the societies set up to build such accommodation. Here is another field in which the federal government, if it is going to boast about its accomplishments, if it is going to fully discharge its responsibilities towards the 65 to 69 age group, ought tc do something.
Then, of course, there is the question of our geriatric centres, which I believe to be indispensable to any worthwhile program for our senior citizens in this country. What responsibility is the federal government going to take with respect to the provision of facilities of this kind? I draw this to the attention of the minister because I feel there is an attitude which has been evidenced by members on the Liberal side of the house when they were in office, and that is that because the federal government is paying a portion of the cost under the Old Age Assistance Act they have discharged their responsibility. I cannot agree with that. I feel that the best solution to the difficulty would be to lower the age group in which payments are made under the Old Age Security Act. I think that is an objective for which we must strive.
In the meantime, I think the federal gov-vernment, if it is going to enable the provinces to carry on this work, ought to be prepared to provide some sort of assistance. Surely the minister cannot suggest that because the federal government is going to provide for a higher payment under the Old Age Assistance Act it is discharging its obligations to this very important age group. In so far as the amendment is concerned, I feel that the amount, while certainly not adequate to take care of the needs of our senior citizens, is an improvement over the type of amendment brought down by the former government. But I urge the minister to give consideration to the provision of greater assistance to the provincial governments with respect to those in the 65 to 69 age group who receive from the federal government a part of their pension, and beyond that stage it is left to the provincial government to take care of their needs.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, the Social Credit group will heartily support this proposal which the government is making for improving the lot of the old age pensioners. We believe that there ought to be an attempt,

as the years go by, to take more cognizance of the production that the Dominion of Canada is able to bring into being. For example, reasoning the matter out in a calm and sensible sort of fashion, does it not appear to every hon. member that when the Dominion of Canada is producing enough butter to provide every person in Canada with all the butter that person can consume we ought to be able to help the old age pensioners obtain as much of that butter as they could use. So with milk and milk products, meat and meat products, clothing, fuel, transportation and shelter.
Last night we heard a good deal of reference to the fact that housing was costing the old age pensioners so much that they were left with very little on which to live. If in the Dominion of Canada there are enormous amounts of lumber lying in the yards waiting for a market and an indefinite number of builders all ready to build houses, does it not strike almost anyone as being rather astonishing or grotesque that we should have any shortage of housing for our senior citizens? Surely we can produce all the lumber and all the other materials that are necessary to make a fine house for every old age pensioner in Canada. Certainly we can provide all the fuel necessary to keep that house warm and well lighted. If we begin to approach the problem of providing for our senior citizens, from that angle, I believe that every citizen of Canada will recognize the fact that, for some strange reason not yet explained by men on either side of the house, we have not been able to make what is physically possible in Canada financially possible to anything like a satisfactory degree.


Mr. Habel:: There he goes again.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes; and it is high time that a good many of us went again. People of the lowest standard of intelligence ought to be able to see that fact without any argument at all. I suppose we shall have to go on until the voters, in spite of the barrage of misrepresentation which they are obliged to go through every election and all the time in between, finally begin to see this important fact and let their disapproval of the inadequacies of the administration register at the polls; it seems utterly impossible to have elected in either the Liberal party or the Conservative party a man who is able to comprehend these facts and to recognize them.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Not the way you do.


John Horne Blackmore: While in our Social Credit election material we advocated a basic pension of $60 a month and an additional amount to match whatever supplementary allowance any province was making, so that in the case 96698-43
Old Age Assistance Act of a province like British Columbia or Alberta the total pension would rise to $100, let it not be interpreted as meaning that we believe that if we gave such a pension to the old age pensioners of Canada, and that only, we would be discharging our responsibility to the senior citizens of Canada.
Here and there and in the corridors occasionally the idea has been expressed that it would be quite out of order if we were to begin to supply our senior citizens with an income so great that it exceeded the income of many of the taxpayers, that if we were to do that, we would be becoming unsound. Personally I do not agree with that idea. When a person reaches the age of 65 in Canada, having fought his way up through life in this country, having helped to make this country and having been paid far less for his work all the way up than he was earning-with which statement I think everybody will agree-surely we are not doing anything irregular when we begin to try to compensate that person for the deficiencies of the income from which he has had to suffer all the way up through his life when we give him an old age pension which will give him a chance to have a little bit of comfort which he was not able to enjoy as he was struggling up, earning his way and raising his family. I think it is well for us to bear that consideration in mind when we try to compute the amount we ought to be giving to our old age pensioners. I would not wish to advocate that we penalize our taxpayers unreasonably; I am convinced that there is a way of financing old age pensions which does not involve a burden on the taxpayers.


Mr. Dupuis:: Out of the $500 million of savings as promised by the Tories.


John Horne Blackmore: That is just a silly remark. If the constituents of the hon. member had realized his attitude in that respect I am sure he would not be here. I am sure we would have at least a Conservative in place of him. That remark indicates an indisposition to face the problem seriously and realistically.
We Social Crediters are prepared to go all the way along with the minister. We express satisfaction that he has gone as far as he has gone, and we shall be prepared to go even further whenever the spirit moves him to go a little bit further.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Chairman, I want it particularly understood that I support this legislation. I heard the minister perfectly when he made his statement but he did not understand my question. My question was asked because of a promise that was made, "If you vote for me, this is what you will get", and

Old Age Assistance Act there was not one word about conditions with the provinces. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that I want every man or woman in Canada who needs this pension to get it whether the provinces agree or not. During the last session when our amendment was being discussed I said that we should raise the pension by $10. For anybody any place in Canada to say, "If I am elected, you will get this" is a mistake. No private member ought to say that and I was extremely careful this time not to say it. But I would say definitely that any man or woman with an income under $3,000 should have his pension increased far above $65. However,
I have not any pity for a man who has $10,000 a year and is seeking a pension. He is a pitiable creature. Why should we help the poor fellow out by giving him an increased pension of $55. That is one thing I have always had against the pension. Notwithstanding my friendship for the former minister of national health and welfare I am of opinion that a man who is getting $10,000 a year or even $5,000 has no business to get a pension. However, I want to say to the minister that I congratulate him on his statement. He is protecting himself splendidly. But I want it to be known that I hope every citizen in Canada who needs this pension will get it, regardless of whether or not the provinces agree.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, in my few remarks today I am not going to rehash the stand of my party. I think that stand was put forward very well by my colleague the hon. member for Regina City. There is, however, one point I think ought to be given a little more attention at this time.
That is in regard to the permissible income for recipients of old age assistance and particularly the group between the ages of 65 to 70. As is well known, the C.C.F. party have for many years advocated the abolition of the means test. We have been accused that this would tend to take away the incentive of the people; that has been one of the biggest criticisms we have heard down through the years, but I would like to point out that the present legislation with its means test does more in my opinion to take away the incentive from some of our older citizens than anything else of which one could think.
With this new legislation it is proposed that the pension be increased by $9 per month with a permissible income increase of one dollar. In other words these citizens are permitted to earn $1 per month more than they could before or the sum of $12 per year. It seems very strange to me that the
[Mr. Mclvor.l
increase has been set at this amount. I think if our present income tax structure has any justification the $1,000 basic exemption for the men and women of our country must or should be based on what is considered to be the absolute minimum on which a person could sustain themselves. If that is the case for men and women up to the age of 65 why should it not also be the case when they are aged between 65 to 70?
Formerly the total of old age assistance and what these people were permitted to earn in addition came to an amount of $720 per year and if they earned or were in receipt of anything above that total it was deducted from their pension. This legislation proposed today is certainly a step in the right direction but it still does not come even near to the basic exemption of $1,000 which I think all members of this house will agree is not sufficient to meet the current cost of living.
I would draw attention to one case which illustrates the evils of this means test clause. I know of a woman in my constituency aged 68 who was in receipt of the old age assistance; she committed the crime of falling down in one of the stores and had the misfortune to break her thigh. She spent considerable time in hospital and the doctor bills and hospital bills continued to mount. She was plagued by them on the one side and on the other side by the representative of the insurance company who was urging her to settle whatever claim she might have under the insurance coverage of this particular store. Unfortunately without proper advice she finally made a settlement with the insurance company which was just sufficient to pay her doctor and hospital bills but this settlement was classified as income for that year and two years later "retribution" started to set in. She is now 71 years of age and has just recently been informed that she was in receipt of $300 in excess of what she was entitled to receive that year while drawing old age assistance. As a result her pension is now to be reduced by the sum of $10 monthly until the month of August 1960. As I say this woman is now 71 years of age, she has not yet completely recovered from the injuries she received at the age of 68 and she is faced with a $10 per month reduction in her pension. I am not sure what provisions are made in this proposed legislation for a case of this kind, whether they will take the whole $9 in addition to the $10 they are now deducting or whether she will be able to continue with a reduction of the $10 only per month.
The stand of my party has always been, as I said before, that this means test should

be dispensed with. If the government does not see fit to accept our proposal in this matter then I think at least it should allow people in the 65 to 70 years of age bracket who are in receipt of old age assistance the same amount of income as the people who receive the $1,000 basic exemption.


Mr. Stick:: Mr. Chairman, I have very little to say on this matter because I think we agree that our senior citizens should be helped and from the temper of the house it would appear that this legislation should get as fast a passage as possible.
The only question of doubt in my mind at the moment is with respect to the age group between 65 and 69. If I correctly understood the hon. minister the provinces will be offered an opportunity to participate in this increase from $46 to $55. I have no doubt that this offer will be accepted readily by many of the wealthy provinces of Canada and that it will be agreeably accepted by the other provinces if they have the ability to pay for it.
My province however may be placed in the position of not being able to afford to do without this offer and at the same time not being able to afford to accept it. That is the problem in my mind and upon which I would like if I could to have some elucidation. I would ask two questions of the hon. minister and I have no doubt he will at least be able to help me make up my mind on this matter. The first question is this: can the minister inform me of the cost to the provinces of administering the Old Age Assistance Act in the age group between 65 to 69 years? Secondly, can the minister inform me if the coming dominion-provincial conference will deal with the significance of the raising of the old age pensions for the same group. In other words, will the minister be able to tell me if this question will be taken up by the dominion-provincial conference?
This is a serious matter for those provinces which might be called the "have-nots" and it is going to mean an increasing burden with respect to the financial tasks before them at the present time. I may be out of order, Mr. Chairman, in referring to this matter, but we in Newfoundland have many projects which we would like to bring to completion. We have the trans-Canada highway which we are anxious to complete and which is a very costly project for our province; we wish to increase our educational facilities and there are many other public works which we badly need and which are an economic burden on our province.
Now this offer which I believe is made in all good faith by the government is, in my opinion, going to mean an added cost to our province the extent of which I do not yet
96698-43J
Old Age Assistance Act know. I would like to have this information so that I may be satisfied in my mind about giving this legislation the support that I want to give it, and I say this in no narrow political sense. I should be very happy if the minister could give me this information and if he could see his way clear to supply me with the figures.


Jay Waldo Monteith: If I may answer the hon. member for Trinity-Conception, I will certainly be happy to have prepared the figures he mentioned. I just do not happen to have them with me at the moment. As to what is going to be discussed at the time of the dominion-provincial conference, I will say that is still open, and if the premier of Newfoundland should wish to discuss it I have no doubt it would be open to him to do so.


Leonard T. Stick: Has the agenda of the conference been worked out, or will it not be decided until the conference meets?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not think the agenda has been worked out as yet. I think it is still possible for the matter to be discussed.


Mr. Irwin:: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of extending the life of this debate for any length of time but I would like to put a question to the minister, and ask him if he would be good enough to take it into consideration and give me an answer when he feels he is in a position to do so. In the event all the provinces do not pass enabling legislation for several months but are agreeable to having that legislation made retroactive to November 1,	1957, will this
government then agree to a retroactive agreement with the provinces? I put that question, Mr. Chairman, because as you know, if this proposal comes into force on November 1 the provinces, in view of the fact that they have first to agree on it, may not be able to pass enabling legislation for probably, two or three months. This would mean that most of the pensioners would not be in line to receive their pensions as from November 1, but only as from the date on which the legislation is passed by the provinces. If the provinces are agreeable to having this made retroactive to November 1, will the government agree?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. member's question, the provinces have to enter into an agreement with the dominion government and we are passing legislation making it effective as from November 1. The hon. member's question is whether, if the provinces cannot get this new agreement signed with the dominion government by the end of November, we would participate and make it retroactive. I would

Old Age Assistance Act say offhand that that is a matter of arrangement under the agreement. I will have the matter looked into and give the hon. member a definite answer on second reading.


Thomas James Irwin: What I said was, in the event of the provinces being agreeable, would you be?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I too have some questions to ask. I wonder if the minister could tell us how many provinces have already taken full advantage of the increase which we brought in earlier this year, the increase to $46. How many provinces have entered into an agreement of that kind?


Auguste Maltais: Before the minister answers I would like to put a question to him arising out of the remarks he made earlier this afternoon. The minister indicated that the government of Ontario has intimated to the federal government its desire that the 20-year period be reduced to 10 years. Would this indicate that the Ontario government had been consulted before this legislation was proposed?
There is another question I would like to put to him. Were all the provincial governments consulted before this legislation was proposed and, in particular, was the government of my own province consulted before this resolution was laid before the house.


Jay Waldo Monteith: As soon as the resolution appeared on the order paper all the provinces were informed immediately, and the moment this bill receives a first reading they will receive copies by air mail. That is the only thing we can do. The implication behind the hon. member's question was: did we have conversations with Ontario; did Ontario influence our thinking? It did not. I may say that our thinking is concerned with the whole of Canada, not with the province of Ontario except in so far as it is a province among the rest of the provinces of Canada.
With regard to the question asked by the hon. m'ember for Comox-Alberni, I cannot give him the number of provinces but I would be glad to give him that information when we reach the committee stage if that would be satisfactory.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: There is one other question I wish to ask, related partly to my first question and partly to that raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond. It relates to whether the legislatures of the provinces have yet had an opportunity of taking advantage of the proposals that have already been put forward here. While the minister is looking into that question he might also consider the question raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, as far as that increase of $6 is concerned, and tell us
[Mr. Monteith.l
whether or not, if a province has not as yet had the opportunity of taking advantage of that legislation and wishes to do so, that $6 increase can become effective as from the date when parliament gave its approval to that increase.
I feel this whole matter should be clarified, and if the minister prefers to give us this information when we reach the committee stage, that would be agreeable to me.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should be happy to give the hon. member an answer to these questions when we reach the committee stage.


Auguste Maltais: In order to make my previous question clear, may I ask the minister how he became aware of the attitude of the Ontario government regarding the reduction of this basic requirement of residence?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Because of a letter addressed to my department; in fact, it was addressed to the former minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: After some
urging by the former minister.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, there are two phases I would like to discuss which touch on the question of the allowable income that those people between the ages of 65 and 70 can earn without their right to pension being impaired. One has already been touched on by the hon. member for Timmins, and I would like to enlarge upon that because in handling a great many of the cases which come under the act now under discussion I sometimes find it impossible to understand the attitude and the approach of those who lay down the regulations.
I am not discussing the civil servants who have to administer them, because they have to obey whatever is put before them, but as far as those who draft the regulations are concerned I think at times they must have ice water in their veins instead of blood; it is cold blood, definitely, not warm blood.
To follow up the case in point that was raised by the hon. member for Timmins: Only recently I was approached by one of my constituents who was hit by a car and very severely injured. He was laid up for months in hospital. He is out now. He will never be the same man again. As a result of the accident the insurance company made a settlement. Well, after he paid his doctor's bills and all his other medical bills only a few hundred dollars were left over. His house had been condemned because it had no new plumbing. He put in new plumbing. It needed painting and he painted it. He was behind in his taxes and he paid his taxes. He had borrowed a little bit of money and he paid it back. He was then left with the grand and noble sum of $87. They could not

touch that worthy old gentleman under the regulations because he was over 70 and therefore income does not count; but his wife is between 65 and 70. Although the money was paid to her husband as damages on account of the injury, the full amount of the money was applied as income of the wife and no allowance was made for necessary expenditures, with the result that her allowance has been cut in half.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, that is not the spirit and the intent of the act and it is not the spirit and the intent of those sections of the act which state that a person can have only a certain amount of income outside his pension; and yet that is the sort of thing that is going on and that is why I agree with others that the amount of permissible income even with the change in the resolution should be increased. It is not high enough. If that is to be the basis at the present time, in the view of the minister, then most assuredly he should pay attention to the interpretations which are being made on what is income and see that a little more of a humanitarian spirit is shown in circumstances such as have been outlined this afternoon.
There is one other phase of this question of allowable income which I find rather intriguing and interesting. It has been brought to my attention upon a number of occasions by those on pension between 65 and 70 in my own constituency. If a person on that pension has invested his capital in a home which is assessed at $4,000, shall we say, then the regulations say that five per cent of that $4,000 shall be classified as income and taken into account. Others-and I have many in my riding-who do not own their own home but who have invested exactly the same amount of money-I am using the figure of $4,000-in dominion government bonds- exactly the same expenditure of capital- are in this position. Under the regulations the interpretation of income on the $4,000 invested in government bonds, and not in a home, is entirely different from the interpretation of the income on $4,000 invested in a home. Five per cent of the $4,000 invested in a home is classed as income in the first instance and it is over double that amount in the second.
Now, a person who does not own his own home has to pay rent, and in view of the fact that as far as capital is concerned both have exactly the same amount invested, why should the one who has invested capital in dominion government bonds have to pay over double? In other words, his pension right is cut to twice the extent of the one who owns his own home. These may seem only small issues.
Old Age Assistance Act


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not think they are small at all.


Harold Edward Winch: No. I say to some they may appear small issues but when you are a member of parliament, and when there are those who are handling the regulations and have to deal with cases of this kind, I am quite sure that it is a heartbreaking task. It is something that could be changed very speedily, either by some slight alteration in the present regulations or by a direction from the government or from the authorities concerned to make a more humane interpretation of what constitutes income. I sincerely hope the minister will give some thought to the two points. One is the raising of the allowable income, as was pointed out by others, and the other is the changes along the lines that I have suggested.


Jean Lesage: I should like to draw the attention of the minister to a situation of which I became aware only three weeks ago. It has to do with the regulation regarding the income to be charged against the recipients of old age assistance. Take the case of a man who owns his own home which is municipally assessed for $4,000. It is exactly the same case as that which was mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver East. A constituent of mine has a mortgage of $2,500 on his property. La Commission des Allocations Sociales de Quebec, which administers old age assistance, charged against the income of my constituent five per cent of the full $4,000. I do not believe this is fair. I believe it should be a charge of five per cent on $1,500, which is the municipal assessment less the mortgage. I was not aware of such a situation until three weeks ago. If I had been aware of such a situation I am sure my ex-colleague in the cabinet would have heard about it. I am just asking the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he would, whenever he has the occasion, look into that regulation and the interpretation which is made by La Commission des Allocations Sociales de Quebec and take the matter up with the provincial authorities.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the hon. member who has just spoken that the implementation of this act is carried out at the provincial level. I have every sympathy with the cases mentioned and I shall certainly give the matter every attention but the act is actually operated by the provincial authorities. We simply contribute.


Harold Edward Winch: Are the regulations not
agreed to?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Oh, yes.

Blind Persons Act


Harold Edward Winch: They are jointly agreed to as between the federal and provincial authorities?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes. The province operates or implements the interpretation of the regulations.


Jean Lesage: Yes, I realize that the interpretation of the various provincial administrations might be different, but I think that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is in a much better position than I am to convince the provincial authorities of Quebec.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am happy to say that if the hon. member had written me about the case when he found out about it I would have looked into it then.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Monteith thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 20, to amend the Old Age Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BLIND PERSONS ACT


Jay Waldo Monteith: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Blind 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, 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.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Casselman in the chair.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, the changes proposed with respect to the Blind Persons Act are completely in line with the changes outlined in the preceding resolution. First, the maximum allowance is to be increased by $9 monthly to $55. The reasons for this have already been given. Second, the income ceilings are to be increased by $120 annually in the case of unmarried persons and $240 in the case of married couples. I will indicate now the present and the proposed income ceilings: Single blind, $1,080, increased to $1,200; unmarried blind with dependent child, $1,560 to $1,680; married with sighted spouse, $1,740 to $1,980; married, both blind, $1,860 to $2,100.
It will be noted that the income ceilings for unmarried blind are now and will continue to be $240 higher than in the case of

single recipients under the Old Age Assistance Act and the Disabled Persons Act. In the case of a married couple, both blind, their joint income ceiling is $480 higher than for a sighted couple on old age assistance. These differentials in the income ceilings favouring the blind have been a feature of our legislation ever since 1937 and no change is contemplated in this respect.
Approximately 8,300 blind persons are at present in receipt of benefits and it is thought that with the increase in income ceilings this number may rise to 9,000. The additional costs attributable to the $9 monthly increase may, therefore, be set at slightly less than $1 million over a 12 months period. A rise of 500 in the case load would mean another $300,000 annually or a total of $1.3 million altogether. Seventy-five per cent of this amount or roughly $1 million annually represents the federal share. The provincial share of 25 per cent will amount to about one-third of a million dollars.


Mr.   Mariin@Essex East: Mr. Chairman, may I first of all say to you, as this is the first time I have spoken in the house with you in the chair, that I should like at this very late date to congratulate one who has been for so many years in the house on his appointment as deputy chairman of the committees of the house.
I should like to make a few brief comments on thfe measure as I have with regard to the others because, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare well knows, this too, like its companion predecessors, is an amendment to an act of parliament introduced by the previous administration. It is interesting to note that the opposition to old age pensions which first emanated in the other place in 1926 was based in part upon the fact that the pension was given to old people just as a matter of right instead of being given to persons who were incapacitated. Indeed, that was the position taken by the then leader of the opposition in this house, Mr. Meighen, and others who spoke on that measure. So the blind were covered up to a point only in so far as they came within the definition of the phrase "old age" under the Old Age Pensions Act until 1937 when amendments to that act were provided to include the blind in a specific way.
It is a matter of history that between 1937 and 1951 the basic amount of pensions to the blind was increased and so were the ceilings on permissible outside income. In my hon. friend's recital today of the income ceilings provided by this amendment he has adhered to the standard of previous amendments in that these income ceilings are higher than the income ceilings in the two preceding measures.

In 1951 the act of which this is an amendment provided for a separate measure to cover the blind. The Canadian National Institute for the Blind in particular and some hon. members had repeatedly urged that instead of covering the blind under the Old Age Pensions Act they should be provided for under an act especially designated for the blind themselves. So it was a historic step in 1951 when we enacted a separate measure covering the blind, a measure to which my hon. friend has now provided an acceptable amendment.
The act of 1951 brought the benefits to an additional 3,000 blind persons, a total altogether, if we include those who were provided for under the Old Age Security Act, of roughly
15,000	persons. I think it is noteworthy in considering this amendment that when we brought in the Blind Persons Act of 1951 we gave effect to the requests made by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. They had put forward a six point program and every one of those points was given accession to by the act introduced by the government headed by the present Leader of the Opposition. These six points can be found for reference in Hansard of June 23, 1951, at page 4589 and following.
As the result of that act we liberalized the eligibility tests very considerably, bringing in numbers of blind persons who otherwise would not have been included because of the regulations, and it is significant that we reduced the qualifying age from 20 to 10 years in the act of which the amendment is now proposed to be a part.
In addition, I think it should be recognized that this is by no means all that the people of Canada through the government are doing for the blind people of Canada. Under departmental estimates, which I am sure my hon. friend would not disturb, the federal government has undertaken to pay 75 per cent of surgical operation expenses in eye operations. The result has been, as I am sure my hon. friend has now been able to ascertain from an examination of the departmental records, that we have provided for the complete rehabilitation of over 50 per cent of the blind persons to whom this financial assistance for eye surgery has been provided. That has not only given these people a restoration of eyesight but it has at the same time lessened the numbers who are on the pension rolls.
This is a program of rehabilitation in which, if I may say so, I have a special interest and it is one which I know the minister will want to carry on. The federal government pays 75 per cent of the cost of that scheme, the provinces paying only 25 per
Blind Persons Act
cent, and it would be most unfortunate if anything were to happen to the scheme. I am not suggesting that it will, although I have seen references made by one of the provincial premiers to the effect that this was a matter that should be left to the provinces; that the federal government was mixing too much into affairs that did not concern the federal government.
Then in the act of 1951, of which this amendment that is now proposed will be a part, we brought in the blind Indians for the first time. The incidence of blindness amongst the native population, of course, is very great. This gave to those unfortunate individuals the kind of assistance which I believe they certainly deserved and needed. Then, too, as in the companion measures, the provisions in so far as the federal government was concerned eliminated the reference to the recovery of estates of deceased blind persons. This was no longer required.
Hon. members will recall that when this amendment was introduced there was a very vigorous debate in this house on the desirability of eliminating the test of eligibility, or, as it is more inaccurately but more powerfully described, the means test. The hon. gentlemen who sit now on the treasury benches were very vigorous in their denunciation of the preservation of the means test in the case of blind persons. Our defence of that position was based upon the fact that the most effective way of dealing with blind persons was not through the acceptance of that proposal but through other forms of liberalization into which we had projected ourselves. Notwithstanding that, Hansard is there as a record of the very strong opposition conducted by certain gentlemen now sitting on the treasury benches. I am not referring to the present Minister of National Health and Welfare. These gentlemen suggested that the government was remiss; that it was unfair; that it was callous in not providing for the elimination of the means test.
Now this particular amendment does not remove the means test. I am not dealing with the merits of that proposal, except to remind some hon. gentlemen of their words and the position which they took in 1951. I find, for instance, in Hansard for May 9, 1953, these words of the present Minister of Public Works on page 5070:
So far as I am concerned, I believe the proper course to follow would be for the dominion to pay the allowance in full rather than getting 25 per cent from the provinces, and I also believe that it should be paid without a means test.
Then the Prime Minister himself, in the same debate later on, supported this point of view, as did the Minister of Agriculture

Blind Persons Act
and the hon. member for Peterborough. In talking about the hon. member for Peterborough, I do so with some reservation because we all know he has a special reason for his interest in the blind. I know that if he were in this house today he would find it desirable to repeat what he said in Hansard, as recorded at page 2931 on April 18, 1955. Then we have, of course, the observations of the Minister of Agriculture on April 1, 1957, page 2919:
I was particularly sorry, Mr. Speaker, to find that the special guidance allowance, without a means test, requested by the blind was not provided in this budget.
He is speaking of the last session.
I would hope the Minister of Finance might still provide for it at this session.
There is no means test eliminated by this amendment. There is no special guidance provided for in this amendment. While this does not affect the character of the amendment, the fact is that the hon. gentlemen who took strong positions when sitting on this side have obviously not taken the same strong positions when sitting on the treasury benches. Likewise, one could observe that while this is a fulfilment of assurances given during the course of an election contest, notwithstanding the dissatisfaction of the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska and the hon. member for Antigonish and others, this does represent in so far as it goes, the fulfilment of what was indicated but it does not deal with the formula proposed and assured for relating the benefits to the cost of living or for relating it to the gross national product.
Nevertheless, I am sure the house generally will recognize that anything we do for this particular class of citizen is something that is done with great eagerness and satisfaction. The blind people of our country, who number somewhere around 20,000, have by their own conduct given an example of self-help. They have not sought charity, but in providing this kind of assistance for them I am sure all of us, in all sections of the house, will derive much satisfaction.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, like other hon. members in the house I listened with a great deal of interest to the various speeches which have been made by the hon. member for Essex East during the debate on this series of resolutions. I cannot help but suggest that it might be rather appropriate if he were to assemble the speeches he has been making in some sort of a booklet under the heading "A Short History of Social Legislation in Canada". There should be a foreword, of course, by the hon. gentleman to whom he referred a short time ago as the present leader of the official opposition. I am

sure that if the hon. member were to do so we would all find a good deal of interest in examining the booklet. It has been quite obvious to me that the speeches he has been making have been more historical in nature than in suggesting any new forward-looking policy. When we had time to do a little historical research we would find such a booklet a very handy reference to have.
In introducing this resolution the minister used the words that it was exactly in line with the preceding resolution. This brought to my mind something that had already been in the back of it, that there is a certain monotonous sameness in the resolutions which the government is now introducing when compared with the resolutions that were introduced by the previous government not many months ago. In fact it seems to me, as one who sits here as a member of the present parliament, and having been here in the last parliament, it is almost as if we were playing a phonograph record and hearing the same thing played over and over again. I had hoped that, in some respects at least, the present government might have shown a little more of the spirit of adventure, more indication of a desire to do a little pioneering work, in the introduction of proposals for changes in social security legislation. However, it would appear that, for the present at least, they are content to remain stuck in that 22-year old rut that was ploughed so deeply and thoroughly by the former administration. I suggest that is particularly true with resDect to the resolution which is now before us.
Reference was made by the hon. member for Essex East to the fact that in 1951 the bill which was then introduced in respect of blind persons pensions had met a six-point program which was brought forward at that time by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. In the course of his remarks he also made some reference to a much more recent one-point program which has been jointly put forward by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and the Canadian Council of the Blind. In his remarks he rather gently chided some of the gentlemen who now sit on the government benches for the fact that this proposal is not in line with some of the suggestions they were making at that time with regard to the one-point program.
I must say that I could not agree more with him in expressing my regret that this resolution does not take cognizance of that one-point program which has been put forward consistently over a period of years by the blind persons' organizations. However,

I would suggest that perhaps I am in a much better position to chide the gentlemen who now sit on the treasury benches about that particular matter than is the hon. member for Essex East. On several occasions in the house over the past two or three years I rose in my place when he was still minister of national health and welfare and urged upon him the value of and the necessity for bringing into blind persons legislation of Canada this one-point proposal for guiding allowance without a means test. Perhaps if he had been a little bit more willing to listen to some of us, both those who are still on the opposition side and those who were then on the opposition side, he might still have the pleasure of being the minister of national health and welfare. Those, of course, are some of the imponderables about which we cannot know. However, I feel that this is a serious omission as far as the present proposal is concerned.
I have had a number of discussions with some of the blind persons of Canada. As I think I mentioned in the house a year or so ago, I had the privilege of sitting in at a session of the annual convention of the Canadian Council of the Blind which was held in Victoria, British Columbia. At that convention I listened to what I considered to be sound and reasonable arguments for the adoption of that principle in legislation making provision for the blind.
The suggestion was made that those suffering from that sort of disability, with all the personal fears and misgivings that it brings about, would feel much greater freedom in attempting to make themselves selfsupporting, active Canadian citizens if by law some provision were made for money security that will meet their special needs. As some of my colleagues have said in respect of some of the other resolutions, I certainly have no objection to the proposal for the increase that is being provided here on the means test basis; I have no objection as far as the increase in the amount is concerned. Nevertheless I feel that the government has shown a singular lack of imagination in the approach it has made, thus far at least, to this field of social security legislation and to this matter of blind persons allowances in particular.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I too am pleased that this legislation has been introduced increasing the amount of income that is permissible. I should just like to mention one instance that has come to my attention in recent months. A gentleman who worked in the mines in 1942 was injured in a blast. He lost some of his sight and subsequently 96698-44
Blind. Persons Act
it entirely disappeared. He now obtains a small pension from the Ontario compensation board but does not quite meet the limitations that we provide in this section. He has a small farm, a wife and a couple of children. On that farm, he does some of the menial tasks that he can do and hires somebody to do some of the others. I would say that it could make no profit on a yearly basis. Recently he was receiving $9 a month under this section of the act. The Ontario administration or the section of it administering this act sent an investigator around. During the month in which they sent the investigator around he had sold two cows and a calf and his income, accordingly, was about $250. This amount, with his pension, brought him over the amount that he was allowed.
What I should like to ask is this. Would the minister be prepared to make suggestions -I presume there is an opportunity to do that in conjunction with the provincial authorities in the administration of this act- to the effect that if people are in circumstances where they are living on a farm and deriving some income from it, no claim may be made against income earned until the period of time has elapsed in which that income would be earned. In other words, to take the price of two cows and a calf and call that income in a one-month period is not reasonable having regard to the length of time it took to raise those animals. I should like to suggest to the minister that he take this matter under consideration when he is discussing the matter with the provinces and that they work out a much more satisfactory system of paying this money or of allowing income on an annual basis.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, while I welcome the provision in the amendment for a higher basic allowance, I am rather disappointed that the government has not seen fit to accede to the representations and the wishes made known by members of our blind organizations in the country with respect to a special allowance to our blind people, free of a means test, in order to provide for the special costs of blindness.
I am sure that all hon. members have from time to time had the opportunity of discussing with officials of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and the Canadian Council of the Blind the peculiar problems faced by our fellow citizens who are blind. Many surveys have been made to determine the amount or percentage of income spent by a blind Canadian which can be attributed directly to his physical disability. It has been suggested that a blind person working on a job might require an amount of 10 per cent to 15 per cent of his

Blind Persons Act
income in getting to and from his place of employment. It is quite obvious that by virtue of being blind there is a need for guiding or other assistance which can be met only by the provision of a blind allowance made without a means test to all Canadians who are blind.
I am quite certain that the minister has received as has every member of this house, representations in previous years on behalf of these organizations and I wonder why at this time the government has not seen fit to proceed in this field towards the provision of such a special allowance. I say this because the special allowance to which I have referred, when combined with the allowance which we are now discussing and which is now under amendment, would acknowledge the basic human needs of our blind citizens on the one hand and on the other hand would of course take care of the special clause on blindness. I ask the minister if the government would not at this time therefore consider making such a provision. These representations have been made for several years; they were rejected by the previous government and I had rather hoped that perhaps with a change in the administration they would have received more favourable consideration.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would like to say one or two words with regard to the matter just raised by my hon. friend from Regina City. Actually the matter of the means test would have to be taken up with the provinces; since they share the cost they would have to be consulted. The Canadian National Institute for the Blind itself is not at the moment advocating the abolition of the means test; it has been advocating most recently an increased pension with the means test, which is what we are providing for. I am aware of the fact, however, that they have also been advocating what is called a guiding allowance free of means test. There has been no representation made in that respect since I took office. I am aware of the matter, however, and undoubtedly will be receiving representations as time goes on and in the months ahead I hope to at least give it consideration.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, just on this point, representations regarding the special allowances or guiding allowances were made this year. As a matter of fact I have received several communications this year although I will admit, of course, they were received prior to the change of administration. I just wish to point out that the suggestions I have outlined here were requested by both the

Canadian National Institute for the Blind and the Canadian Council of the Blind.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Monteith thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 21, to amend the Blind Persons Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DISABLED PERSONS ACT


Jay Waldo Monteith: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
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.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Casselman in the chair.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not propose to duplicate on this resolution the comments which I have made with respect to the proposed increase in the amount of benefits to $55 a month; nor do I propose to repeat the explanation I have already given in the debate on the old age assistance resolution with respect to the proposed increases in income ceilings. The amendments proposed to the Disabled Persons Act with respect to the amount of benefit and the income ceilings are precisely the same as those proposed for the Old Age Assistance Act and the reasons for them are identical.
The only further amendment proposed in respect of the Disabled Persons Act which requires a brief explanation has to do with the proposed changes affecting the eligibility of certain patients or residents in certain types of institutions. It will be agreed I think by everyone in the house that the Disabled Persons Act restricts to a very extreme degree the eligibility of persons who for one reason or another are confined to different types of institutions. In effect, in respect of certain types of institutions the ban is absolute.
Paragraph (e) of subsection 2 of section 3 of the present act provides in effect that no person can qualify for the disability allowance while he is a patient in a tuberculosis

sanitorium, a mental institution, an infirmary, a home for the aged, or an institution for the care of incurables. Persons in types of institutions other than those which I have mentioned are in some cases eligible for consideration under restrictions set forth in the disabled persons regulations. It is possible in other words under certain circumstances for a person who is a patient or resident in a hospital, nursing home, or a private, charitable or public institution other than those to which I have referred as being absolutely barred, to qualify for disability allowance.
I do not propose at this stage to go into all the detailed considerations which are set forth in the regulations other than to say that, generally, the regulations require that the cost of the patient's stay in the institution in question be paid for by relatives or friends or some other non-governmental authority before the application of a patient in any of these institutions can be considered.
This government considers that the restrictions placed on eligibility of institutionalized patients with respect to the Disabled Persons Act are much too severe. There may perhaps be a case for arguing that patients in mental hospitals and tuberculosis sanatoria be excluded, not so much on grounds of principle but simply because their inclusion would mean that by and large the federal government, through the Disabled Persons Act, would be contributing towards the cost of practically every single patient in a provincial mental hospital or tuberculosis institution. There may be a case for doing this; I am not arguing the merits of it at the moment. If federal support for institutions of this kind to this extent is justified, it would seem that the medium through which such financial support should be provided should be a medium other than the Disabled Persons Act. In other words, the Disabled Persons Act should be kept for its original purpose, mainly assistance to individuals, rather than be used for the purpose of having the federal government share with provincial and local authorities the admittedly heavy costs of providing these kinds of institutional care. Because of these considerations, the government does not now propose to alter the provisions of the present act with respect to persons in mental hospitals and tuberculosis sanatoria.
With respect to the other institutions which are presently under an absolute ban, namely infirmaries, homes for the aged and institutions for the care of incurables, the government proposes to move these out of the category of institutions which are subject to an absolute ban and into the category of 96698-44j
Disabled Persons Act
institutions referred to in paragraph (f) of subsection 2 of section 3 of the act which will permit certain patients in these institutions to qualify for disability allowance on the same terms and conditions as patients presently qualified in hospitals, nursing homes or other private, charitable or public institutions.
A further reason for proposing this amendment has to do with the administrative difficulty that has been experienced in dealing with the different kinds of institutions referred to in section 3(2) (e) and 3(2) (f) of the act as they stand at present. It is often difficult, for example, to distinguish between homes for the aged, or infirmaries or institutions for incurables on the one hand, and nursing homes on the other.
Henceforth there should be much less difficulty. It is a relatively simple matter for example to identify a mental institution or tuberculosis sanatorium; patients in these will continue to be ineligible for the reasons already mentioned. But patients in any other types of institution, regardless of name or type, will be eligible to apply and may qualify, subject to the regulations. I may as well state frankly to the committee that we have not yet had an opportunity to examine the regulations to determine whether they, too, need changes to bring them into line with our ideas of what is fair and equitable. I propose as soon as practicable to make an examination of these regulations and to obtain the view of the provinces with regard to them. In the meantime we propose the change in the act itself to which I have made this reference.
The cost of the changes here proposed in respect of the Disabled Persons Act is subject to some uncertainty because the entire disability allowance case-load has not yet been completely stabilized. As hon. members know the act came into effect less than three years ago. At the end of the first year almost
24,000	recipients were on the rolls; in 1956 another 7,000 were added; in the first nine months of 1957 another 5,000, bringing the present total to about 36,000. Assuming the annual rate of increase continues at approximately 7,000 yearly for at least the next 12 to 18 months, we may anticipate an average monthly case-load in the next full fiscal year of somewhere around 43,000. The additional cost of the $9 monthly increase for this group would therefore be in the neighbourhood of $4.6 million, with federal and provincial shares divided evenly at $2.3 million each. Possibly as many as 1,000 individuals might be favourably affected by the amendment proposed with reference to certain types of institutions.

Disabled Persons Act


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest to the statement which the Minister of National Health and Welfare has just made, particularly to the amendment which he has proposed with regard to patients in institutions. I suspect it would be more desirable for us to deal with this particular amendment when we are confronted with its actual terms in the bill rather than deal with it now.
I agree that the problem of institutional care has caused great difficulty in the administration of this measure but I am sure the minister knows already that this act-an act which was almost pioneering in its character as far as this country was concerned-requires the gathering of experience in the application of its provisions. I think it would be only fair, even though I may incur, again, the understandable chiding of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, that I should briefly give a little history about this as I have done with regard to the other measures. I do this for the purpose of impressing firmly upon hon. gentlemen opposite-though I do not think they really need this kind of impressing -that once again all these measures are amendments to measures introduced by Liberal governments.
This particular measure owes its authorship to the right hon. gentleman who is now the Leader of the Opposition. A few months after the election of 1953 he suggested this to me-and there had been no real public discussion of this, as the Prime Minister, who now shakes his head, will agree, he being in an extraordinarily happy mood today- there had been no discussion of this during the election of 1953. It was never made as a promise. Nevertheless it came into being shortly after that election as a result of the suggestion made by the present Leader of the Opposition, a man who will shortly be retiring from the public life of this country. I would like Hansard to note that I have said that this measure is due entirely to his suggestions and to some of the arrangements he made with two provinces in particular.


John George Diefenbaker: You are laying up treasure, now.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Well, I will say this to the Prime Minister: If he watches me carefully he will find a way to lay up treasure.


John George Diefenbaker: In January.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: My hon. friend says "January". Is that the new election date?


John George Diefenbaker: Haven't you heard about it?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: The Prime Minister will remember his experience in these matters only a year ago. I was not here at the time but there was an event of some importance in the month of December and if there are any traces of that event in the house at this time he may look upon himself as an exemplar of this conduct.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare said there are some 35,000 beneficiaries under this legislation at the present time. That was the figure envisaged when the act was introduced and we also estimated at that time that the federal share would cost between $6 and $8 million. I should be very interested to know, when we get into the committee stage of this bill, whether or not the minister is able to give us some more precise indication of the cost of the proposed amendment, not that there is any exception taken to it but just as a matter of information; I would like to know what the present calculations of the department are.
Under the bill, the age of eligibility is set at 18 years. That age was set in accordance with the wish of the provinces, and I stated as much when the bill was introduced. Notwithstanding this, hon. gentlemen opposite, including the Prime Minister, took exception and thought the age ought to be lowered.
As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister went further in the statement he made when he said there were many things about the Disabled Persons Act which needed review and reconsideration, and he listed them; but I am not aware that any of the things he suggested should be reviewed are now incorporated in the amendment which the Minister of National Health and Welfare has just proposed.
Some hon. gentlemen opposite did take the position that the age of 18 was too high and that it should be reduced, and I know that the minister does not intend to make any changes in that particular. Likewise, there is no change being made in the residence requirement which was fixed at 10 years when the bill was introduced in 1953.
Now, there was a lot of complaint on the part of members when the act was introduced about the definition of disability and I am sure my hon. friend, with his access to departmental history, is in a position to confirm this statement. The original definition of disability was arrived at as a result of the experience, notably in the province of Ontario, the first province to have a disability act, and it was only as a result of the insistance of the province that the original definition was introduced.
I do not hide the fact that I always found that definition restrictive. I do not know that

I ever said so in this house. Possibly I was precluded from doing so, but I did feel that it was restrictive and as a result, as my hon. friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare now knows, there was a liberalization provided for in this definition last spring.
I take it that since my hon. friend is not dealing with the definition of disability this modification, this change, made in the definition of disability is acceptable to him as it was to me last spring and as it was to all of the provinces.
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.
This brings to an end of the resolution stage the important and valuable amendments which have been introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. All of these amendments are parts of acts previously introduced by those of us who sat on the treasury benches a few months ago. They represent part of a very important program of social welfare in this country which began first of all with old age pensions, with all of the modifications that took place, with the introducton of family allowances, with unemployment insurance, with blindness allowances, with disability allowances, with the national health program and with the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. All of these various measures are indications that the previous administration did sponsor every one of them.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Bennett sponsored
unemployment insurance and you people had it thrown out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Bennett introduced unemployment insurance but the Supreme Court of Canada declared it ultra vires.


John George Diefenbaker: At your request.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No manipulation of words by the Prime Minister will change this fact, that every bit of social legislation on the statute books of our country, with the exception of the increase of the federal share of old age pensions in 1932, was placed there by a government under Mackenzie King or Louis St. Laurent.


Howard Charles Green: Don't forget your $6 increase.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Be careful about this business of indirect closure. Don't prevent a man from speaking in this house. Remember the rights of parliament can be violated by thwarting discussion.
Disabled Persons Act


Mr. Hodgson:: You are a past master at it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is exactly the kind of situation I like. The Prime Minister is a man for whom I have personally the highest regard, as he knows. We exchanged pleasantries at 2.30 p.m. in another room and he said that that did not preclude us from taking serious issue. I take issue with the Prime Minister now. Commendable as he is as a gentleman, I cannot help but admire but at the same time deplore the tactics which he so often employs-and employed particularly in recent months-of giving to the nation the impression that at long last we have a real sponsor of social legislation in this country, when the fact is, Mr. Chairman-


George Harris Hees: The hon. member never spoke better.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that not one bit of legislation in the social welfare field, outside of these amendments, can be attributed to the party of which my hon. friend is the head at this time, and no matter how uncomfortable he may find these statements, they are facts.


Howard Charles Green: They are not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And with no amount of manipulation on his part will he ever be able to deny it.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, the Disabled Persons Act is an act in which I have been interested for a long time. In fact, on different occasions during the last parliament I complained to the then minister of national health and welfare about the administration of the act in the different provinces of Canada. The minister at that time assured me that the regulations were the same in all provinces. I have visited the 10 provinces of Canada and from what I have seen I am not satisfied with his statement because I found great differences. Every province has its own idea on the administration of the Disabled Persons Act. In some provinces the only persons who can benefit from this act are the ones who are either confined to bed or those who are unable to put on their own clothes or feed themselves.
In my travels I have met people who are able to do these things but at the same time they are too disabled to earn a living. Of course, differences in administration of the act are to be expected because each province has its own panel of doctors who may interpret the clauses of the act in a different way. One of the drawbacks of this act is the fact that it is a federal statute but administered by the provinces. When speaking on

Disabled Persons Act
this matter before in the house I have suggested that it might be a good idea to have a meeting of all the doctors who sit on the medical boards in each different province. The outcome of their discussion might help in enabling each province to administer this act in the same way.
Another matter I should like to draw to the minister's attention regarding the Disabled Persons Act is where-
The Depuly Chairman: Order.


William Scottie Bryce: I will be only a couple of minutes. May I have the unanimous consent of the committee to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


William Scottie Bryce: Thank you. Another matter I should like to draw to the minister's attention regarding the Disabled Persons Act is where the province attempts to find work for a disabled person or teach him a trade in which to earn his livelihood. In some cases, after a trial of about three months, it is found that they are not fitted for work of any kind. Sustained employment for three months is necessary to determine whether strain of full employment is too much for the disabled person. However, while employed for these three months or so the disabled person must disqualify himself from receiving his allowance under the Disabled Persons Act. The risk of losing the allowance as well as the lack of certainty of the handicapped person's ability to continue employment on a full-time basis deters any handicapped person from attempting to become self-supporting. Would it not be possible for the minister to amend the act so that a person could get his pension while he is trying to establish himself and make his own living? As it is at present, immediately he starts to work his pension stops, but if it proves that his work is too much for his state of disability he has to apply again to the board to be reinstated under the Disabled Persons Act.
This may take three or four months before he gets a hearing by the board and he loses his pension in the meantime.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Shaw:: I have something I want to say but it is five o'clock.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of public bills and orders.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 12, to amend the Canada Elections Act (ballot papers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated on first reading of the bill, I have introduced this measure on a number of occasions before. Therefore I will be very brief in what I have to say because those hon. members who were here during the last parliament will be quite familiar with it and I will just say a few words by way of explanation to those who may not be familiar with the history of the measure.
The bill has two provisions. The first is to put the political affiliation of the candidate on the ballot paper. The purpose of the second is to provide that the leader of any of the political groups in the country can, if there is any doubt, send or give a letter to the returning officer indicating which of the candidates in any constituency is the official representative of the particular political party.
During the course of the debates in the last few years when I have brought this measure before the house it has been pointed out that we are not elected to the House of Commons as members of political groups but as representatives of the people of Canada and therefore political affiliation should not be taken into consideration. I think that is a rather weak argument because if hon. members will look at the seating plan of the house they will find that each of the groups in the house is definitely designated according to political affiliation. They will find also if they look at the back pages of Hansard each Wednesday that the political affiliation of every member of the house is shown in the list of members.
Whether or not we want to admit it, Canada does have a party system. Each candidate as he goes into an election does so duly nominated by his political party. He goes into the campaign on the hustings as the representative of that political party regardless of the fact that no mention of his political affiliation is made on the ballot or nomination papers. In checking the Parliamentary Guide through the years I have found numerous instances-hon. members will find that the same thing was true on June 10 last-where in past elections some of the parties have felt they did not have a chance to win a particular constituency and have deliberately gone out and selected a candidate with a name either identical to or very similar to that of the candidate whom they hoped to defeat.

When I introduced the bill last session one argument put forward against the bill was that if a man were sent to the House of Commons as the representative of a political group it might stand in his way if he wanted to cross the floor or change from the government side to the opposition side or vice versa. I should like to point out that within recent times we have had a very good example of that and apparently the fact that this person was in the house as a member of a certain party did not make a bit of difference because when he made his statement about changing he said that he was changing from one party to another.
There is only one more point I wish to raise. There are provinces in Canada which have adopted the policy of accepting the fact that we do have party politics in this country and have placed the political affiliation of candidates on ballot papers. It has worked out very well. In order to save confusion in the future, I think the best thing that we in the House of Commons can do is to adopt a practice which has been accepted and found wholly adequate in some of the provinces and thus, where there might be confusion, give the people the opportunity to know which candidate represents the party for which they would like to vote.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I most certainly am strongly in favour of the bill which has now been introduced. The practice of putting the party affiliation of the candidate on ballot papers has been in effect in the province of British Columbia for a great many years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Look what it has resulted in.


Harold Edward Winch: My hon. friend says, "Look what it has resulted in." I say, Mr. Speaker, that if that is the will of the people then that is the result that should take place. There is another very good thing that has happened. It has kept my hon. friend's party out of office in that province. The people do not want them.
The important thing that we should keep in mind is, what is the meaning of a democratic election? Surely it is that when voters go to the polls they should be able to be certain that they are actually voting the way they desire to vote. In all honesty, I think we all have to admit that voters are divided into two categories.
There are those who vote for an individual, and there are hundreds of thousands of them, and on the other side there are those who vote because they believe in the principles of a certain party and want to support the candidate of that party. Those who are
Canada Elections Act
motivated in the casting of their ballots by the desire to vote for an individual know the name of that individual. I think we all go through the experience, and it happens on innumerable occasions, of finding that those who want to cast a ballot for a particular party cannot remember the name of the candidate of that party.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Shame.


Harold Edward Winch: My hon. friend says, "Shame". It is not so much the shame of the parties themselves because they might not have the money or the opportunity to get the name of the candidate before the people. You cannot say it is too much to the shame of the individual, either, but if there is any shame it is on the individual.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you know humans are human-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Edward Winch: This may sound strange, but humans are human and they are subject to human nature. Very often people cannot recall the name of the candidate of a specific party. I might say that in British Columbia we found the Liberals and Conservatives really topnotch in trickery when they were hoping, by a little bit of subterfuge such as picking a candidate with the same name as a person already nominated, to create confusion. This has occurred in British Columbia on more than one occasion, and on more than one occasion the perpetrator of that trickery was the Liberal party. This may be poor strategy in the minds of some people, but it does create a situation in which a voter does not know which one of these John Does or Frank Smiths, whatever the name
is,	is the one for whom they want to vote. The only way in which these people can be sure they are voting for the right person is to have the political affiliation marked on the ballot. If the candidate has no political affiliation, then he is shown as an independent.
Surely, the major principle is to give every voter, even if as my hon. friend said a moment ago they might at times be stupid-he said
it,	not I-a full opportunity to cast his vote in a way that will express his wishes. Now what is wrong with that? Is it that there are some hon. members here who are afraid to have their political affiliations marked on the ballot? I would say, surely not. Therefore, what objection can be made to having that marked on the ballot?
For many years this principle has been followed in provincial elections in British Columbia. I feel absolutely safe in saying that not one of the four parties in British
688	HOUSE OF
Canada Elections Act
Columbia would want to remove this principle because it has proved to be most successful. When the hon. member introduced this bill last year, I recall one of the objections that was raised by one of the cabinet ministers at that time was the difficulty of being able to designate who was the official candidate. So far as my knowledge goes, this occurred only twice over the years in British Columbia. When this happened the political leader immediately notified the returning officer by telegram, and under the act the candidate so designated became the official candidate and the person who was trying to get the votes and the kudos of the party to which they did not belong was put down as an independent.
So, Mr. Speaker, no matter how you look at it, from the viewpoint of experience or from the viewpoint of the voter having the right to know he is voting the way he wants to vote, I can see no objection to this measure. Of course once a member is elected and appears on the floor of this house, he is representing all the constituents. But let us not kid ourselves. We are elected according to our party affiliation, so let us be honest enough to have that affiliation marked on the ballot paper.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Secrelary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor of the bill has said, this bill in the same form has been before this house on previous occasions. When I was occupying a seat on the other side of this house I opposed it, as did my colleagues.
I have had no reason since to change my mind about that stand, not that I am averse to changing my mind if I am convinced but in this particular case I am not convinced that the arguments which held good in our opinion at that time are not equally valid today.
In 1955, when the committee on privileges and elections sat, this question was on the agenda. It was not discussed. It was brought up, if my memory serves me well, in a letter from a Social Credit member and also in a resolution from a union local. No one in the committee spoke to it, and the thing just died a natural death. Later the same year, I believe it was, the hon. member's bill first appeared on the order paper. It was subsequently debated and was defeated. Then, again, early this year it was once more on the order paper but no action was taken; there was a debate, but the debate was not concluded.
Since then, Mr. Speaker, we have gone through another election. One would expect that if anything might change a person's mind it might be the experience one encountered in an election campaign. Like everyone else, I had many such experiences, and found some


amusing and some not. I recall one particular experience which, in my opinion, was not so much amusing as it was an indication of the type of situation which the hon. gentleman has described and to which the hon. member has referred. It was late in the afternoon of polling day and I had been visiting a poll in my riding. When coming out I discovered a gentleman and his wife carefully scanning a poster which was on the outside of the poll. As I came out, they accosted me and said, "Could you tell us who is the C.C.F. candidate?" I must say, Mr. Speaker, it did cross my mind to say, "Fairclough".


John Whitney Pickersgill: They probably wanted to vote against him.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: However, I thought that was scarcely cricket, and I explained to them that the Canada Elections Act did not permit the inclusion of party affiliations on the ballot. I suspected that they knew who I was all along, so I just left it at that. I have wondered since what they would have said to me if I had said "Fairclough". I did not have the pleasure of observing that particular reaction. I can well believe there is a different situation in some of the remote areas from what there would be in the heavily populated parts of the country.
However, Mr. Speaker, between the announcement of the election and the actual polling day I think there is ample opportunity for the various candidates to make themselves known to their constituents. Even in remote areas I find it extremely hard to believe that a voter could be in the peculiar position of not having seen a single piece of literature or of not having heard a speech from a public platform, a street comer, on the radio or on television or of not having had someone call at his home. I think it is quite unlikely because it seems to me that, if he were in such a remote location that none of these things happened to him, he would probably be equally removed from the vicinity of the poll. Consequently it is quite likely he would not get to the poll, a thing which would be most deplorable. But if he is anywhere in the neighbourhood of a poll it seems to me that he is also available to the various types of communication which are daily becoming more and more efficient.
Someone made reference to possible trickery-I think that was the term used-which might be indulged in by a party or a candidate in having put into nomination the name of someone with precisely the same name as the official candidate of a recognized party. Whether or not this is done delibrately for that purpose, it has happened several times in the past and it happened

consistently in at least one riding I can think of. Yet the member who represents that riding, and who has been a member of this house for many years, manages to have himself reelected time and time again. Apparently the people in his constituency are quite aware of his name, who he is and where his name appears on the ballot.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) indicated that he would suggest that if a candidate was not a member of one of the recognized parties, he should be listed merely as an independent. I think it may be interesting to note that in the last election there were at least 16 different descriptions of candidates and no one party laid claim to all of the independents. In the list I find that there are Independent Progressive Conservatives, Independent Liberals and Independent Social Credit. A well known and highly respected member of this house consistently runs under the description of Liberal Labour and I wonder whether the hon. member for Vancouver East would have him classed as an independent simply because he did not use the name Liberal by itself. Among the descriptions which appear were such intriguing ones as Canadian Democrat; and one for which I am sure no leader of a political party in this house would vouch is one who ran under the description of Liberal Conservative Coalition. If he were elected, I would not know just where he might sit. Maybe he would take turns sitting with each of us.
In any event, all of these things, if they do nothing else, point up the rare degree of individuality which we find in election candidates. It seems to me it would be a sorry day if that state of affairs ceases to exist. I do not believe that any candidate should be circumscribed by such a description as "Independent" when he has an imagination which will produce such descriptions as those which have been placed on nomination papers and of which there are many examples other than those I have mentioned.


Harold Edward Winch: He is still an independent and would be so designated as an independent.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Who?


Harold Edward Winch: Anyone who tries to run under any designation such as that. He should not get votes as a Liberal or coalition candidate; he is an independent and that is where he belongs.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am sure that the hon. member has had sufficient experience to know that when the election is all over and the house is formed a great many of these
Canada Elections Act
people who run under such designations find their way into one of the four parties which are represented in this house. However, this is a matter which is for this house to decide. The hon. member has debated this bill previously. Many hon. members of this house have spoken to it. It is not my intention to reiterate anything that has been said previously or to rehash the debates either in this house or in committee. Each of us has his own opinion and that is the basis for the vote which we give in this house. That opinion, in the case of an affiliation described on the ballot paper, is quite likely based on the personal experience of the individual member. Without saying anything further on this measure, Mr. Speaker, may I just conclude by saying that we find we cannot support it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I believe I am now occupying the seat that was occupied in the last parliament by the hon. lady and I find it extremely difficult to disagree with anything that she has said on this occasion. I find-probably for the same reasons as the hon. lady has found-that there are few people of my name who try to get nominated in my constituency in order to confuse the electors. If my name were Smith, Jones or Winch, the situation might be different.
I really do not feel strongly about the bill. If there were only four political parties in this country and if everybody was agreed about who belonged to which, and if everyone was agreed-as they are about the four parties in this house-as to who their leaders are, it would seem to me-although I do not think it is very important at all-not very important if the bill were passed. I think the hon. lady put her finger on a real difficulty in connection with passing this kind of legislation.
Although the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), who of course believes in regimentation anyway as a matter of principle, thinks that all sorts and varieties of men who will not fall into one of the four parties in this house should be forced to describe themselves as independents, I as a Liberal would not like to circumscribe their freedom in that way. If a man wants to call himself an aggressive Conservative or even a reactionary Liberal or even a democratic Socialist, I think he should be perfectly free to do so if he can get the necessary $200 and the necessary number of electors to sign the nomination paper. As the hon. lady said she would be, I would be very sorry to see that change.

Canada Elections Act
I think that returning officers would be presented with a good many serious problems if this legislation were passed, particularly in its present form. There is a political organization-


An hon. Member:: What is it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman could just possess his soul in patience for a second, that is precisely what I was going to explain. There is in this country a so-called political party that describes itself as the Labour Progressive party. I should like to know who would be recognized as the leader of that party for the purpose of this legislation. It seems to me that it would be perfectly ridiculous to recognize that organization which has no representation in this house as a political party and yet what would one do if someone got himself nominated, describing himself as a Labour Progressive candidate? Half the name indeed might well be confused with the name of the hon. lady's party-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: There is that possibility.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And I am sure no one would want to see that happen. It seems to me also that the case to which the hon. lady referred, the case of my hon. friend the member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Beni-dickson) presents very great difficulties. No one has ever doubted that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is a member of the Liberal party but the political organization to which he belongs in his own constituency has been called the Liberal Labour organization for historical reasons. There is no reason why that should be changed and I do not favour regimentation in an effort to change things like that.
In the province where I spent 30 years of my life, for many years the Liberal party has described itself, long before the hon. members opposite took up the designation, and still describes itself, for provincial purposes as the Liberal progressive party. It is no less Liberal on that account.


An hon. Member:: And no more progressive.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well perhaps as the hon. gentleman suggests it is no more progressive than it used to be, but it is a good deal more progressive than these latter day progressives immediately opposite.


George Harris Hees: That is not what the people thought on June 10.


Mr. Cardiff:: It is like the old story "there goes Johnny coming back".


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the electorate are as ill informed as the member for Vancouver East seems to think they are-although I do not agree with him-T can only say that

my constituents had no difficulty in distinguishing between the Liberal candidate and the only other candidate there was. Perhaps I could just illustrate what the difficulty might have been in my own constituency the first time I was a candidate- this would not have been a difficulty for me but for the gentleman who for a temporary period associated himself with the Progressive Conservative party and who ran against me. He had been a provincial Liberal cabinet minister and then for a very short spell associated himself, as I say, with the Progressive Conservative party and contested the election against me-


An hon. Member:: As a Progressive
Conservative?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a Progressive Conservative, at least that is what we understood he was. Shortly after that he joined the C.C.F. in Newfoundland and I believe he has since left that party.


An hon. Member:: And left the country?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is doubtful if he supports any party at the present time but it does seem to me, while I am a Liberal and something of a radical at that-


Some hon. Members:: What?


An hon. Member:: Radical Jack.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are some respects in which I do feel that a real case for a change should be made out before a change is in fact made.


An hon. Member:: That was done on
June 10.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It does not seem to me that a sufficient case to make such a change worth while has been made out and that is why I will vote against the bill, if it should come to a vote.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, I am thinking for myself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear, another radical.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I remember very well when people of different types were afraid to make a public profession. I am in favour of this bill because I do not want to be tagged to anything except that in which I believe, but I do want that tag. It may be difficult for the returning officers but with all the respect and admiration I have for my friend who just sat down,-


An hon. Member:: Give him a kiss.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: -it has nothing to do with the party. He is a declared candidate and while I may not ever be a candidate again and I do not expect I will be-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Do not be too sure.


An hon. Member:: The majority was very small last time.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: -I say that a person should be known by the profession he makes and if he makes no profession then he should say "none".


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I think Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) must at some time have paid a visit to the province of British Columbia and have associated with some of the Liberal and Conservatives of that province because in supporting this bill-and in speaking for myself as I am sure each one of us is doing-he made a suggestion which I think has now received quite general acceptance within the province of British Columbia by the people of all political interests. I have risen on at least two previous occasions to support a bill introduced by the member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas), such as the one we now have before us and I think I am doing so from some experience of the situation which was outlined by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). We have been able to compare the situation between our provincial election act which makes this provision and the federal election act which does not. I imagine in the course of the last four or five years I have probably received hundreds, certainly dozens of complaints from people in my district with respect to the fact that the federal elections act does not have in it a provision such as this bill proposes.
Now it is all very well for the hon. Secretary of State (Mrs. Fairclough) to speak of her experience in a riding like Hamilton West and to speculate upon the situation in what she has described as remote areas; to suggest that there must be something wrong with the voters if they have not had an opportunity to know who are the candidates running for the various political interests.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Something wrong with the candidates.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I would suggest to her that she might consider changing her place of abode and perhaps run in Comox-Alberni during the next federal election, whenever that may be.


An hon. Member:: You would be out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You had better take care.
Canada Elections Act


An hon. Member:: McQuillan will give you enough trouble.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Oh, we will deal with McQuillan if he should be a candidate again.
She would probably have the experience that I have had over and over again, of having people, quite sincerely and honestly ask her who the candidate is in her riding for the Liberal party or the Conservative party.
It is a physical impossibility in the time allotted for any candidate in a constituency like Comox-Alberni to visit all the polling districts in that constituency. I know. I set out on May 1 and travelled continuously until May 20 in areas where one does not travel by car but by plane or boat. I slept in a different place every night but even so I was able to visit only the larger polling places, and I know the same applied to the other candidates who were contesting the election. There were many polling places out of the 150 or so in a riding such as Comox-Alberni which no candidate was able to visit. That, I think, is one of the very practical considerations involved in this proposal.
As I have listened to this proposal debated from year to year I have asked myself: why all this fuss and holding up of hands in horror at the suggestion of having the political interest indicated on the ballot paper? It seems to me that this is a much more significant thing to have mentioned on the ballot paper than the occupation of the candidate as is required at present because, after all, I do not think it makes very much difference, really, whether a man is a farmer or a lawyer or a merchant; what matters more is the kind of representation he is going to give the people of his area in the House of Commons. It certainly is a matter of more legitimate concern to every voter to know what particular political point of view a candidate will be presenting here on his behalf.
I am very happy once again to support the measure introduced by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin and I might perhaps add that I have another particular reason for supporting it on this occasion, a reason which was not in my mind when I supported the bill previously. This is something I discovered in the course of a trip I made through the province of British Columbia. The hon. member for Vancouver East indicated that one of the results of a provision in the British Columbia elections act makes it a little more difficult for people to attempt to trade upon the names of opposing political interests. In the course of my travels I discovered that apparently at least one of the

Canada Elections Act
colleagues of the hon. member for Wetaski-win felt it necessary to attempt to ride a little bit on the name of one of the other political interests represented in his riding.


Ray Thomas: Not so.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have in my hand an election poster. No sponsor's name appears on it, but at the bottom it says "Leboe" with a big X, and down the side it has three rather large letters which read "C.C.F." If you put on your glasses and look at it closely you will find that alongside the top "C" it says "Carmichael" and opposite the next it says "Close" and against the bottom one it says "Ferry". So if you take out a microscope, you will realize that this is in effect a magnified sample ballot and the names of the four candidates running in the election, together with the riding, are all indicated on it.
I suppose those who sponsored this particular piece of literature may have thought it was an interesting way of securing the attention of voters, but it also indicates apparently, that the present member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) and some of his supporters thought that if he was going to be returned to this house he would have to make use of the name of the C.C.F. party. That is quite a compliment to the political organization to which I happen to belong, and I am sure that when the next election comes the voters in Cariboo will probably take the advice and vote for the real C.C.F. candidate.
I think this does provide a very good illustration of the point that the hon. member for Wetaskiwin had in mind when he moved this bill, because it would prevent or discourage certain of his colleagues from resorting to this type of practice when they are conducting their election campaign, and that is perhaps one of the reasons why the people generally in British Columbia have agreed that this proposal is a good one.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I think this bill has just about the right amount of meat in it for me to try my rather fledgling wings. There has been no real reason advanced by any hon. member who has spoken as to why this bill should be approved.


An hon. Member:: Not be.


Ernest James Broome: As far as the problem of names is concerned, hon, members on this side of the house are the only ones who have to fear that in the next election, and I do not think we are very much afraid of that. With regard to limiting the number of parties, as the hon. member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Winch) would wish to do, the effect of that would be that outside the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Social Credit Party and the C.C.F., everyone else would become Independent.


An hon. Member:: No.


Ernest James Broome: But think what a terrible thing that would be, because if there were ever a reform element within the Liberal party it might become "the Liberal Liberal Party". The proposal would stultify growth in the other parties and, I think the house would agree, that is not to be desired.
With regard to the other matter which has been mentioned, a candidate who has been so inactive that his constituents do not know his name or political affiliation. Considering the many means of disseminating information throughout the riding, even remote ridings such as those covered by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: They were asking me who the Conservative candidate was in the last election.


Ernest James Broome: There may have been one or two who did not know, but considering the means of disseminating information now available, I doubt whether there are many people in any riding, no matter how widely spread it is, who are not aware of the names of the candidates.
If this should happen it would be because the candidate has made no news. Our newspapers are fair during an election campaign, and if a candidate has worked, his name will be in the newspapers. One might as well say it is just as unfair to put the names on the ballot paper in alphabetical order. I expect some day to hear of a bill proposing that the names be placed in a hat and drawn out.
Mr. Speaker, there is no real merit in this bill whatsoever. It is something to take the place of thinking. It is something to promote a feeling, almost designed to assist certain sections of the population to vote without knowing what a candidate stands for or whether he would be a suitable person to represent a constituency. It is an alternative to thought, and I do not see how any one who has any real feeling for a democracy could fail to understand that a voter should vote for the person whom he thinks can best represent him, and all the people of the riding, in parliament.
There is no place for such a measure as this on the statute books and I shall be delighted to vote against it if the matter comes to a vote.


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the bill. I do so with a certain amount of reluctance because of the

fact that at least two of my colleagues have spoken in favour of it, but this is the kind of question upon which I am sure each member speaks his own mind and for himself and not for his party.
I cannot object too much to the first provision of the bill; in other words, the candidate who takes out a nomination paper and wishes to put on that paper something to indicate his political affiliation or interest perhaps should be permitted to do so. I think, Mr. Speaker, that that can be done right now without any amendment to the Canada Elections Act whatsoever because under the act at the present time there is provision for the candidate to place his name, his address and his occupation on the paper. If a person wishes to name his occupation as Social Credit there is absolutely nothing to prevent his doing so at the present time.
It is the second part of the bill to which I have more serious objection, and I do say that in all sincerity because I think it would create a very dangerous, if not a chaotic situation. I think the sponsor of this bill, if he thinks the thing through carefully, will probably see what I mean. It provides that in case the returning officer has any doubt as to the proper political affiliation:
The name of the political party or interest represented by a candidate shall be shown in the manner required by the written direction, if any, of the recognized leader of such party, which shall be filed with the returning officer before five o'clock in the afternoon of nomination day: Provided that where the recognized leader of the political party or Interest represented by a candidate does not file a written direction the name of that party shall be shown in the manner in which it appears on the nomination paper of the candidate.
In other words, the recognized leader of the party shall provide the proper designation of what is considered to be the official candidate. One serious objection to that has already been raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) which I think is quite valid. That is, it would force the hand of the returning officer, and put him in the position of having to recognize a poltical party which perhaps today does not exist, or evists only in the minds of those who are interested in that particular movement. I think I can cite an example. The comumnist party of Canada no longer exists except in the minds of the communists. Their official designation now, as far as I can gather it, is Labour Progressive. They are not considered to be, or recognized to be, a major or even a minor political party in Canada. But every time someone attempted to run as a Labour Progressive candidate, or even as a communist candidate, he would have the right, under this legislation, to have the leader of his party
Canada Elections Act
recognized by the returning officer in his constituency. I think that is a sort of lefthanded way of doing something which the sponsor of the bill himself would not want to do.
Not only that, but the bill provides that the recognized leader of the party concerned shall do the designating. Now who is the recognized leader? I wish to point out to my Social Credit friends that up until three weeks ago in the province of Manitoba the Social Credit movement had three leaders and none of them was recognized by the Social Credit party. Who is going to be the recognized leader? Who is going to do the designating in that province?
They would find themselves in an impossible situation, where the returning officer would first of all have to be the person to decide what is a recognized party; and, second, who is the recognized leader of that party.
With all due respect to the sponsor who has good intentions I wish to point out that the returning officer in a constituency has enough to do, within the very limited time provided under the elections act to do all the things he is called upon to do, without having to decide who are the recognized parties in the country and who are the recognized leaders of the recognized parties. I would also like to say there are a good many returning officers who would not be qualified, in my opinion, to do that. They would not have the knowledge, nor do I think it is their responsibility to do that kind of recognizing.
Just in case the sponsor of this bill might think I am opposing it because I personally have reluctance to make known on my ballot, or on my nomination paper, what my affiliation is, I wish to tell him that is not the case. I am a member of the Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation and have been for well over 20 years now, and I have been a candidate under the sponsorship of that party on seven different occasions, and I have no intention of changing that affiliation. Therefore it is not a personal matter with me; but I do want to point out the weaknesses of the bill. My advice to the sponsor would be this- his intention I respect-the only step which I think could be properly taken in these circumstances is for him to withdraw his bill, think the matter through carefully, and present a different type of bill with which he may have greater success.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Herridge the debate was adjourned.

Business of the House



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the leader of the house what is the business for Monday.


Howard Charles Green: On Monday we plan to carry on with the discussion on the resolution concerning pensions for the disabled, and then to take second reading and committee stage of the bills amending the Old Age Security Act and the Old Age Assistance Act and then the Blind Persons Act, followed by the resolutions standing in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and then the throne-speech debate.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder whether the
leader in the future, when he announces the business, would consider referring to the items on the order paper. It has been brought to my attention by some of the new members that when there are several resolutions standing in the name of a minister sometimes it becomes confusing. I wonder whether the house leader would not just refer to item 3, as an example. I do not mean that he should do it now, but perhaps in the future.


Howard Charles Green: I would be glad to.


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

Questions