1957-11-05

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 24, to amend the Indian Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to eliminate the necessity of an Indian having to sign a waiver form before he has the right to vote in federal elections. This bill should be taken in conjunction with another bill standing in my name on the order paper.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. 25, to amend the Canada Elections Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: As I said before, this bill and the one to amend the Indian Act go together. Presently native Indians are not allowed to vote in federal elections. The purpose of this bill is to remove that disqualification and put them on the same basis as anyone else.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Prime Minister, or, in his absence, to the house leader, the Minister of Public Works. I gave notice of the question to the Prime Minister this morning.
Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to a telegram from Mr. K. A. Smith, board member of the mine, mill and
smelter workers, to the effect that the Howe Sound Company in British Columbia declare that their operations at Britannia Beach will have to be closed, throwing 800 persons out of employment, unless immediate assistance can be forthcoming to the base metals industry? Is the Prime Minister or, in his absence, the house leader in a position to inform the house as to any possible government action to prevent the calamity of the closing of a major industry in British Columbia with 800 persons being thrown out of work, in about two weeks?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for letting us have notice of his question. I also received this wire, and no doubt it has come to other members from British Columbia.
As the hon. member knows, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) has been doing his best for some time to prevent the closing down of this mine, and he will continue to do so. In addition, steps were taken to persuade the United States government that action should not be taken to raise the duty on copper.
The wire in question mentions the fact of prices having dropped. Of course the price of copper is set on the world market, and I am afraid the government cannot do much about that matter.


Mr. T. J. Irwin (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I wish to direct it to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I may say that I have given him notice of it. In view of the fact that it is indicated by the board of directors of Howe Sound Company that at a meeting to be held by such board on November 19, 1957, the Britannia property will close down in the face of price deterioration, what action has the government taken in regard to the brief submitted by the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers dated August 19, 1957?


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond for his courtesy in giving me notice of his question. As the matter referred to is of interest to the Prime Minister (Mr. 756	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Diefenbaker) and to my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) I will take the question as notice and will answer it on the earliest possible occasion.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct to the house leader a question supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East. Will the government give consideration to getting in touch with the government of British Columbia in order to see what cooperative action between the two governments may be taken to prevent that calamity which has been referred to?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to take that suggestion into consideration. The Minister of Labour is not here. I am not sure whether he may not have already done that. Of course the primary responsibility in this case rests with the provincial government.
[Later:!


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I almost shudder because I want to ask a supplementary question to the first question asked on the order paper. You will admit, Mr. Speaker, that I have been getting up and down like a jack in the box.
I would like to ask a supplementary question on the first question asked of the Minister of Public Works as leader of the house, relative to the threatened closing of the Britannia mine. Would the house leader give an explanation as to exactly what he meant by his statement here today that the responsibility lies with the provincial government, in view of the fact that exports, tariffs and subsidies are of a federal nature? Secondly, would the minister please tell us if the federal government is going to take any action to try to stop the closing of this major industry in British Columbia?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I told the hon. member that the Minister of Labour had been doing his best to prevent this situation from arising and that he would continue to do so. I did not say that the federal government had no jurisdiction. I said the primary jurisdiction was with the province because this is an industry which does not come directly under federal government jurisdiction.


Harold Edward Winch: Explain that. All base metals are under federal jurisdiction.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour. I wonder if he could give us an
[Mr. Comtois.l

idea as to what type of action the Minister of Labour has taken in order to prevent the closing of the Britannia mine.


Mr. Arthur Maloney (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's question as notice and it will be answered tomorrow.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works, arising out of his answer to the hon. member for Vancouver East concerning the jurisdiction over mines.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not want to
prejudge the hon. member's question, and I shall allow him to ask it, but I do believe we have had enough supplementary questions on that one subject today. However, the hon. member may try us out and see if the house considers it in order.


Frederick George Hahn: My question is this. Has the minister or the government informed Britannia mine that these mines come under the jurisdiction of the province and they should take their problems there?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member will agree that this is not a question which is calculated to throw further light on the answers that have been given. We had better consider that question closed for today.



COMMUNIST CHINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister prepared to confirm a statement attributed to our trade commissioner at Hong Kong that Canada is prepared to accept Canadian dollars, Swiss francs or convertible sterling in payment for wheat, lumber, fish, etc., which he hopes to sell to the Chinese communist government when he reaches Peking? I might say that I heard the news item on the one o'clock broadcast of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation today.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the news broadcast. I think I would have to examine the question in Hansard and give a reply tomorrow.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister tell us whether this is a change of policy, and the government is now prepared to accept sterling?

When I say "sterling" I refer to convertible sterling, not blocked sterling which some countries possess.


Gordon Minto Churchill: When there is a change of policy it will be announced in the House of Commons.



REFERENCE TO MAGAZINE REPORT RESPECTING WASHINGTON CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the statement made by Mr. Blair Fraser correct when he says in Maclean's magazine of November 9 that the United States government was told at Washington that Prime Minister Diefenbaker's reference to a 15 per cent switch was a mere offhand remark and that Canada plans no drastic measures to promote such an aim? Is it true that the United States government was pleased with Canadian assurance that no further preferences were to be extended to commonwealth countries?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think the first statement the hon. member read out is incorrect. I recall no such references being made at that conference. In so far as the second question is concerned, again it was not a subject of discussion.



U.S. DISPOSAL PROGRAM    REPORTED STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldl-Melforl):: My
question should be directed to the Minister of Finance, but in his absence I shall direct it to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister inform the house as to the reason for making the statement in New York over the week end that Canada is far from satisfied with the assurances recently given by the United States government regarding its surplus disposal policy? What further steps does the government consider taking in the face of this dissatisfaction?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am very thankful that I am responsible only for my own statements. Perhaps, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, I could take this question as notice.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of National Defence arising out of a report in the Medicine Hat News that the R.C.A.F. unit attached to the defence research board at Ralston (Suffield) will be disbanded as of December 31, 1957. Will the Minister of National Defence assure the house that sufficient personnel will be retained at this base to accommodate incoming aircraft, as it is the only airport in the area at the present time with adequate runways to allow larger aircraft to land in case of emergency, or as an alternative landing port?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minisier of National Defence):: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. The small R.C.A.F. detachment at the defence research board's Suffield experimental station at Ralston is to be withdrawn at the end of this year, although the air force will continue to meet aircraft requirements for the board's research and testing purposes from other sources. Since service aircraft will be needed to continue experiments conducted at Suffield experimental station, the defence research board intends to maintain the runways existing at the present time.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. T. Slick (Trinily-Conceplion):: Mr. Speaker, I notice the Minister of Transport is not in his place. Perhaps his parliamentary assistant can take this question as notice. Will the minister inquire into the grounding of two C.N.R. coastal boats lately, namely the Burin and the Henry W. Stone, also the derailment of a freight train near Stephen-ville, and report to the house?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minisier of Norlhern Affairs and National Resources):: On behalf of my colleague the Minister of Transport I will take notice of the question.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. My question results from my overnight meditation on the answers given by him yesterday to the hon. member for Kingston. First, was the constitutional commander in chief of Her Majesty's armed forces in Canada consulted before a portion of those forces was committed to the command of a United States

Inquiries of the Ministry general? Second, by what constitutional or legal process were the present Canadian-United States command arrangements consummated?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question, I presume the hon. member is referring to the NORAD command integrated between the R.C.A.F. and the United States air force at Colorado Springs. Naturally the Governor General was informed of these arrangements, and he approved of the appointment of Air Marshal Slemon to that command.
As far as the second part of the question is concerned, I would say that the arrangements for setting up this command followed a similar pattern to those governing our forces serving with the supreme allied command in Europe and the naval forces in the Atlantic under the supreme allied commander, Atlantic.


Hon. Jean Lesage (Monfmagny-L'Islef):: have a supplementary question. Were there any orders in council on the subject?


George Randolph Pearkes: As I explained yesterday, there was an order in council appointing Air Marshal Slemon to the command, and at the time I tabled that order in council I also tabled the joint statement which was made by myself and the secretary of defence of the United States.


Jean Lesage: Was the transfer of authority to United States authorities approved by order in council?


George Randolph Pearkes: The transfer of authority
conformed to the practice which has existed with respect to the other Canadian forces in Europe and in the Atlantic, and followed closely the procedure which had been set up during the Mackenzie King-President Roosevelt conversations before the last war in which Canada and the United States agreed to co-operate for the mutual defence of this continent.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask a
supplementary question. Is it not a fact that the participation of Canadian troops overseas was as a result of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization convention, which was first of all approved by this parliament?


George Randolph Pearkes: The joint defence of the North American continent is equally part of the object of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and just as much a part of the plan for the deterrent to war as that of having troops stationed in Europe.


Jean Lesage: Is General Partridge acting as the commander of NATO?


George Randolph Pearkes: General Partridge is the commander of North American air defence.


Jean Lesage: Not under the authority of NATO?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence further to my inquiry yesterday as to the joint air defence command. I would like to ask the minister whether the command of Lieutenant General Earle Partridge and Air Marshal Slemon of the new continental air defence command is operative at the present time.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already answered that question or questions similar to it. Yes, it is operative on an interim basis until the formal agreement has been drawn up as I explained to the house.


William James Henderson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If it is operative at the present time, to what extent can General Partridge commit Canadian forces?


George Randolph Pearkes: In the event of a national emergency occurring General Partridge, after consultation with the Canadian government and with the government of the United States, would be able to commit either American or Canadian forces in the defence of this country.


William James Henderson: With no limitation?


George Randolph Pearkes: I beg your pardon?


William James Henderson: With no limitation?



MOOSE JAW


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis Lewry (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, notice of which has been given. Would the minister care to comment on reports that the NATO training school at Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, may be closed down in 1958? Can the minister assure the people of Moose Jaw that such reports are unfounded?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, there are no present plans to close down the airport at Moose Jaw during the calendar year 1958.
[Later:!



PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICERS AT U S. BASES IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I apologize for

not giving him notice, but I am confident he has the answer at his fingertips. In view of the fact that the minister, when in opposition, urged that all public relations officers at United States army bases in Canada be Canadians, can the minister inform the house if he has given effect to his own wishes?


George Randolph Pearkes: Would the hon. member repeat the first part of his question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In view of the fact that the minister, when in opposition, urged that all public relations officers at United States army bases in Canada be Canadians, can the minister now inform the house if he has given effect to his own wishes?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am quite certain that my own wishes are being carried out, but whether or not they have been completed at the present time I am not in a position to say.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. C. Christian (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture or to his parliamentary assistant, notice of which has been given.
In view of the fact that Canadian livestock are required to have medical clearance before being permitted to cross the border into the United States, and further that at the present time additional veterinary service in southern British Columbia is required relative to the matter of obtaining such medical clearance, would the Minister of Agriculture consider investigating the matter immediately, and the provision of additional veterinary service at this time?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I regret to inform the hon. member that I did not receive his auestion before coming to the house. I will take it as notice and have a reply ready tomorrow.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can the minister advise the house whether an agreement has been signed between the federal government and the government of
Inquiries of the Ministry the province of British Columbia with respect to the Cassiar-Stewart road? If so, is there any indication in that agreement as to where the southern terminus of that road will be?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker,
I think this question is covered by a question on the order sheet, if my memory serves me correctly, but I have no objection to answering at this stage.
In answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Skeena: yes, there is an agreement which has been signed, but some points still remain to be clarified between the two governments. As to the question about the final location of the southern terminus, the answer is that no definite decision has been made.


Jean Lesage: On
the same subject, since I asked the question on the order paper, and the minister seems to be in a good mood for answering questions, has a survey been made by the Department of Public Works, and if so has a report of the survey been made to the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a survey has been made by the Department of Public Works and a report has been submitted by that department to the minister of northern affairs.


Jean Lesage: Is the minister of northern affairs satisfied with the route this road should follow?



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. R. Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question, of which I have given notice, to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister make a report to the house outlining the situation which obtains at present regarding the Peace river bridge at Taylor flats?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, the progress which has been made in repairing communications along the Alaska highway is as follows. The ferry operating just upstream from the collapsed bridge is making 60 trips a day each way. There is now no ice condition in the river, and the level of the river has dropped 10 inches since November 2. The southern approach to the P.G.E. bridge is now 95 per cent complete, and it is hoped that this road will be completed by today.
The bridge over the Pine river is 28 per cent completed, and it is estimated that that
760	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry bridge will be in operation by November 13. The decking on the P.G.E. bridge is 30 per cent completed. Prefabrication of decking is well in hand, and the contractor expects that to be completed by November 16. The northern approach is well under way, and 35 per cent of the work having been completed it is estimated that the road on the north side of the river will be completed by November 13.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Defence. Is he in a position to inform the house today whether the federal government feels a moral obligation to maintain a bridge crossing on the Alaska highway at Taylor flats?


George Randolph Pearkes: The federal government is under the obligation to maintain the Alaska highway suitable for military transport. As that bridge and the southern part of the route have been used by commercial traffic for a number of years, I am sure the federal government will consider giving assistance to the restoration of the bridge. I cannot report on the steps yet to be taken to restore the bridge. We have had experts out on the site, and they have advised that there should be a complete soil analysis made before any restoration is undertaken.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. What steps are being taken by the C.B.C. to build a television relay station in western Nova Scotia so the people of western Nova Scotia may receive T.V. programs?


Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to send me notice of his ques-:ion a few moments ago, and it could be answered in various ways. In the first place,
I am not sure of his definition of western Nova Scotia. I had the impression that I represent a substantial part of western Nova Scotia and at least in Digby county, which the hon. member well remembers, having represented it himself at one time, there is very adequate television reception now from the station in Saint John and I think substantially to the west of the county as well, running down pretty well through Clare.
A short answer to the question, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, might be "none", because at the moment there are no immediate plans for the erection of satellite stations in western Nova Scotia. But the hon. member


will appreciate the fact that up to now there has been no microwave connection with the national hook-up across Canada. That is being completed. Temporary connections were effected for the world series a while ago which gave baseball coverage to western Nova Scotia; temporary connections were effected for the visit of Her Majesty, and now I am advised that a permanent microwave connection will be installed at the end of the year. After that, of course, consideration will be given to the installation of satellite stations to supplement the transcontinental national microwave system.


Thomas Andrew Murray Kirk: May I ask the Minister of National Revenue if he would permit me to define for him western Nova Scotia?


George Clyde Nowlan: Don't monopolize it. I have an interest there too.


Thomas Andrew Murray Kirk: It includes Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare, which is the portion of western Nova Scotia which does not now receive the programming.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue. Do I understand from his remarks that a microwave set-up through a region is a technical prerequisite for any C.B.C.-T.V. satellite transmission?


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not an expert in that field, Mr. Speaker, and I would not want to say it is a technical prerequisite, but certainly in the terms of the question which was asked by the hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth-Clare the establishment of a microwave was, I think, a prerequisite.



NEW BRUNSWICK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, which he may take as notice. Can the minister advise the house what action is being taken to provide the 250,000 people of northern New Brunswick and the Gaspe coast with television facilities?


George Clyde Nowlan: I shall take that question as notice.



LACHINE SECTION, ST. LAWRENCE RIVER- STATEMENT ON APPLICATION BY QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
the Minister of Public Works if he is now in

a position to answer the question which I directed to him on Friday concerning power development in the Lachine section of the river?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have that answer now. The question was:
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?
The answer is no.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question as to whether, falling short of a formal application, representations have been made in that direction to the Department of Public Works.


Howard Charles Green: I would have to take that supplementary question as notice.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY IMPOSITION OF TOLLS    COST PER BUSHEL OF WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: I
would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport or, in his absence, the minister acting for him. He may take this question as notice and answer it at a later time if that suits his purpose. What will the government's decision to impose tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway cost the western farmer in cents per bushel on wheat?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will take note of that question but I would suggest that when the minister gets back it may change into an order for return.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Claus Christian: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture or his parliamentary assistant. Notice has been given. In view of the fact that a number of irrigation districts in British Columbia are experiencing the utmost difficulty in obtaining badly needed renewable capital projects, what action has been taken by the government to extend the P.F.R.A. to British Columbia?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to take that question as notice, and perhaps have an answer ready tomorrow.
Inquiries of the Ministry HARBOURS



ST. JOHN'S, NEWFOUNDLAND-INQUIRY AS TO IMPROVEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twil-lingate):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Does the government expect to make an early start on the badly needed harbour improvements in St. John's, Newfoundland, which were planned by the minister's predecessor and which are being advocated urgently by the Newfoundland board of trade?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has said there was a study made and the report has been referred to different bodies in Newfoundland for their opinions as to what course should be followed. I did have a letter from the president of the board of trade a few days ago which was strongly in favour of following the plan, but we have not heard from the other interested bodies as yet. The department will move ahead with this development just as rapidly as possible.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Minister of Trade and Commerce if, in view of the fact that more than five weeks have elapsed since the Mont Tremblant conference, any commonwealth government has yet acted on the recommendation of any one of the finance ministers that a commonwealth trade and economic conference should be held? At the same time, could the minister indicate whether or not any decision has yet been reached as to when and where this conference will take place?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I am unable to give an answer to the hon. member's question. This information would likely be in the possession of my colleague the Minister of Finance.



RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Would the minister care to comment on the public statement made by the director general of scientific services of his department that Canadian

Inquiries of the Ministry alloy research is being stepped up to meet the Russian challenge in the field of rockets? Is a geological survey now being conducted to discover rare earths required in the development of alloys in this field?


Paul Comtois: I wish to thank the
hon. member for giving me advance notice of his question. The statement to which the hon. member refers results from my recent request for an active study of our departmental activities with a view to determining where, if possible, an acceleration of research could be achieved to meet the challenge offered the western world by the recent launching of earth satellites by the U.S.S.R. Any proposals such as those referred to will be considered and subsequently discussed with my colleagues, as more than one department or agency of government would be involved in such an accelerated program of research. I know the hon. member will not expect me on this occasion to comment upon the scientific aspects of this news announcement.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulion (Aciing Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: On October 31 the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked me whether a report from London was correct that a young British couple had their fares paid to the United Kingdom in order that the wife, who was suffering from cataracts, could have an operation performed in England free of charge. He went on to ask, "If so, what kind of advertising for Canada is that?".
I gave a partial reply to the question that day, and said I would make an investigation and bring in a further reply. The further reply is that this couple were returned to the United Kingdom at their own request on compassionate grounds, included amongst which was the medical condition of the wife with respect to her eyes. Their return passage was paid by the Canadian government under the provisions of section 70 of the Immigration Act.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime


Minister. When does the government intend introducing legislation to remove the excise tax on automobiles?


Howard Charles Green: I am surprised that the hon. member is in such a hurry to get this tax off, after his government put it on.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: That is not the
question; you said you would do better.


Howard Charles Green: When the legislation is to be brought down an announcement will be made in the ordinary way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Is my hon. friend not aware of the fact that the previous administration reduced that tax from 25 per cent to 15 per cent and from 15 per cent to 10 per cent?


Howard Charles Green: If I remember correctly, Mr. Speaker, they put it up first. They may have reduced it a little bit.



MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS-CONGRATULATIONS ON BIRTHDAY ANNIVERSARY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to find an excuse for questioning the Minister of Public Works because, as one of the old timers in the house to another, I desire to wish him many happy returns of the day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I thank my old friend the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar for his kind reference, though I have reached the stage where I do not entirely appreciate being reminded of my age. I should also like to thank the other members of the house for the kindly way in which they have received this reference.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. I might say he would give all of us in British Columbia a great deal of joy if he will clarify the statement to the effect that the policies on diking have been revised by this government as compared with those of the former government. I have a newspaper clipping which indicates that such is the case.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was through with questions for the day. I may say that we have made some change in policy in this regard. The former government would not assist with maintenance work on the dikes. They would pay 33 J per cent on any new diking work done, the province would pay 33J per cent, and the municipality was expected to pay the other 33J per cent. We have adopted a new policy of sharing in the cost of the maintenance of these dikes on a basis of 374 per cent, provided the province will pay 37 J per cent. That means, of course, that the municipality need only pay 25 per cent.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Is the money needed for this new policy taken off the estimates for protection works in the province of Quebec, and especially in my riding?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Would the minister care to comment on a press report to the effect that in a recent Royal Canadian Mounted Police raid in Toronto the books of 18 financial houses were seized in what is suggested might be a $50 million evasion of income tax?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my attention has not been drawn to this report. I am therefore not in a position to comment on it at this time.



BASE METALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour or, in his absence, of his parliamentary assistant. I have not given him notice of this question and perhaps, if it is required, he will take this as notice. Would the minister advise the house what consideration is being given to the telegram received by the government in September and referred to the Department of Labour, signed by members of all parties in British Columbia, asking for action on the protection of the base metal industry in British Columbia?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that question might well go on the order paper, in view of the fact that the telegram was sent in September and that I have already requested hon. members not to ask further supplementary questions on this matter.


Harold Edward Winch: No answer has yet been
received.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REFERENCE TO REPORT IN &quot;GLOBE AND MAIL&quot; OF NOVEMBER 5

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Hornby Harrison: Mr. Speaker, I intended to ask a question of the Prime Minister but, in his absence, possibly the house leader would answer it. A picture in this morning's Toronto Globe and Mail of a Conservative convention shows a banner reading "Diefenbaker and Frost, a winning team". Does this indicate a continuing Conservative homage to Ontario and endorsation of the concept of a vassal role for all other provinces?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member does not expect an answer to his question.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Harrington Lewry: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Minister of Public Works a question of which notice was given. Can the minister give any indication when a start may be made on construction of the new federal building in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan? Can he say whether any plans have been made as to the disposal of the present post office building there?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. It is hoped that a start can be made by May 1 of next year. As yet no plans have been made for the disposition of the present post office building.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monimo-rency):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister mav T direct a question to the

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Public Works. In view of the fact that most of the pulp mills in the province of Quebec have cut down employment since the last federal election, is it true that the government has decided to build a pulp mill at Bonaventure in the province of Quebec, as promised by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) during the last election campaign?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take this question as notice.



LICENSING OF OFF-SITE STORAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It arises out of his statement that he would make inquiries, as reported in this house on October 27. Has the minister given further consideration to the question of licensing oil-site storage for grain? Is he able to report on his inquiries into the mobility and quality of grain in off-site storage?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I have given further consideration to the question of licensing off-site storage for grain, but I have not yet reached a decision. I am investigating all problems in connection with the storage of grain.
The second part of the question deals with matters that are or might well be the subject of debate, as to whether or not off-site grain
is as mobile as grain in storage in trucks. The same thing applies with regard to the quality of grain in both places. There are instances, I am informed, where off-site storage has been just as adequate as in annexes of the elevators, both with regard to mobility and keeping qualities.



STATEMENT ON MONETARY INCENTIVE TO SHIP THROUGH EASTERN PORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have an answer to a question asked me yesterday by the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison), which was as follows:
What monetary incentive in cents per bushel is being offered to purchasers of Canadian wheat for taking delivery at eastern Canadian ports rather than at Fort Churchill and Vancouver?
The answer, which I regret is fairly long, is as follows. The Canadian wheat board endeavours to provide wheat generally competitive in overseas markets irrespective of the port of shipment. The board takes into account not only internal costs of moving wheat to seaboard positions but also the various ocean rates involved and such variations in the foregoing costs as may occur from time to time.
To give effect to this policy the Canadian wheat board commenced on February 16, 1954, to quote separate selling prices for wheat as follows: For wheat in store Pacific coast; for wheat in store Fort William-Port Arthur; for wheat in store Fort Churchill. Today's Canadian wheat board prices for wheat are as follows:
Grade
(Per bushel In store)
Fort William-
Vancouver	Port Arthur	ChurchillNo. 1 Manitoba Northern No. 2	"	"No. 3	"	"No. 4	"	"$1-714	$1,604	$1,7041.674	1.564	1.6641-614	1.494	1.5941.504	1.364	1464
Prices for wheat at St. Lawrence ports are based on the Fort William-Port Arthur prices plus the cost of forwarding wheat from this position to St. Lawrence ports, which is approximately 22| cents per bushel currently.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask
the minister a supplementary question. Is this same general policy also followed in prices for barley; and can the minister say whether in recent weeks the price of barley at eastern ports has been substantially reduced on account of this policy?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the figures in answer to the first part of the question. With regard to the second part of

the question, a reduction was made in the price of barley in recent weeks by 6 cents, effective with regard to barley for shipment overseas.
In part the answer would be as follows. The wheat board proposes, for the remaining days of open navigation in the St. Lawrence river, to increase barley movement to markets in the United Kingdom and in western Europe. The means being applied by the wheat board for a limited time this fall is to adjust the selling price in respect of barley which is purchased from the board and subsequently exported to western Europe. The adjustment rate at the present time is 6 cents a bushel.

Inquiries of the Ministry
HEALTH INSURANCE	ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis Denise! (St. Boniface):	Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He has already given me an answer, but I believe he would agree that a public statement would help to clarify the matter. It is with regard to the national health insurance scheme. Has a reply actually been sent to the government of the province of Manitoba with regard to the inclusion of mental and tubercular patients in the scheme?
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, a reply has been sent to Premier Campbell indicating that this matter may be discussed at the federal-provincial conference on November 25 and 26.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. P. Lavigne (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture or, in his absence, to his parliamentary assistant. Has financial assistance previously given to cheese factories upon amalgamation been discontinued by the present government?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, and because I did not get notice of this question, I shall have to take notice of it now.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, if I may have the floor I should like to answer a question addressed to me yesterday by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), who asked whether the contracts have yet been awarded for construction of the natural gas pipe line east of the lakehead and, if so, whether any of them have gone to Canadian companies.
The answer to the first part of the hon. member's question is no. The second part is therefore not applicable.



DISCREPANCIES IN PENALTIES IMPOSED UNDER CRIMINAL CODE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister advise the house as to what is the responsibility of his department with respect to discrepancies in penalties imposed under the Criminal Code? In British Columbia last week a 17-year-old boy charged with attempted rape-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Harold Edward Winch: -received three years and four paddles. In Ontario four weeks ago an 18-year-old boy charged with attempted rape received three months and eight paddles. Can the minister tell me what is the position-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister may
answer if he sees fit, but I consider this a question which relates to something which is not within his jurisdiction or his administrative responsibility. The sentences given by judges are not subject to the jurisdiction of the ministry or of this house, except by way of legislation.


Harold Edward Winch: It is also a question that I cannot put on the order paper. How else can I ask the question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can possibly answer the question even with the best of will in the world under the rules or within the time available on the orders of the day. Under these circumstances I would be glad to try to deal with it, in so far as it lies within my responsibility, as a question on the order paper; or I would suggest to the hon. member that a more appropriate time to discuss the matter, if he wishes, is when the estimates of the department are before the house.


Harold Edward Winch: Will the minister go into this case if I meet him personally; because the lashes are already ordered. The paddle has already been ordered and one has been fulfilled. There is that difference in sentences, and could I meet with the minister and discuss it with him?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would think that in so far as there is anything that requires immediate investigation it will be brought before the remission service of the department and immediately investigated.
76G

Old Age Assistance Act OLD AGE ASSISTANCE ACT



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ALLOWANCE, RESIDENCE AND ALLOWABLE INCOME

Jay Waldo Monteith: the second reading of Bill No. 20, to amend the Old Age Assistance Act.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps a
brief statement is required of me at the opening of this debate on' second reading of the Old Age Assistance Act. Most of what I could usefully say has already been given in my statement on the resolution. Hon. members will see that the bill itself requires little explanation. We are simply re-enacting section 3(1) of the Old Age Assistance Act, changing the references to the maximum amount of assistance payable so that in future it will be set at $55 monthly; and, at the same time, we are changing section 3(2) of the act to read 10 years instead of 20 years as every point where reference is made to residence requirements.
Finally, section 3(2) is being further changed to provide an increase in the allowable income ceilings by $120 yearly in the case of single recipients and $240 yearly in the case of married couples. For example, where an unmarried recipient was formerly allowed to have $840 a year, including assistance, he will now be allowed a total of $960 a year, made up as follows: $660 by way of asistance and $300 by way of outside income, after which his assistance is reduced by the amount of excess income.
Where a married couple was formerly allowed to have $1,380 a year, including assistance, they will now be allowed a total of $1,620 a year. This can be made up in one of two ways. If both man and wife are eligible for assistance they can receive as much as $1,320 a year by way of assistance and $300 by way of outside income. If only one member of the couple is eligible for assistance they can receive only $660 by way of assistance but they can have as much as $960 a year in outside income before there is any reduction in the amount of assistance payable.
In the case of a married couple one of whom is blind the income ceiling is even higher. Such a couple may receive as much as $1,980 a year in total income, including assistance. Where one member of the couple is on old age assistance and the other is on blindness allowance they can receive as much as $1,320 a year by way of benefit and have, in addition, as much as $660 a year in outside income.
If only one member of the couple is on old age assistance and the blind spouse is,


for some reason, not in receipt of benefit, the total amount of assistance payable is only $660 a year; but in such circumstances the outside allowable income can be as much as $1,320 a year without reduction of benefit.
The second section of the amending bill provides that the effective date shall be November 1, 1957, as far as the federal government is concerned. But each province will, of course, have to come to a decision to implement these changes in its own jurisdiction before they can actually become effective. Copies of the amending legislation were sent to the provinces on Friday, and new draft agreements are ready to go forward for their consideration as soon as approval is given to the bill itself. The provinces will, naturally, be the ones to determine the dates on which these payments will commence within their jurisdictions.
I am assuming in all my calculations that all the provinces and territories will wish to enter into new agreements and to make them effective from November 1, but, of course, at the moment I have not had time to receive official word from the provinces on this point. There will be no difficulty about giving effect to the agreements retroactively to November 1, even though they may not actually be signed before the end of the year or a little later.
As far as I know, there is only one province where an actual amendment to the provincial law itself is necessary: and even in such case it has been the practice in the past, if a province so desires, to enter into a new agreement subject to an undertaking by the province that it will, at the next session of its legislature, present the necessary amendments for retroactive application and approval.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What province?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Prince Edward Island.
I think, therefore, we can rest assured that any provinces which wish to make these increased payments effective from November will be enabled to do so. At the same time, we must recognize the right of any province, having regard to its own circumstances, to delay its initiation of these changes to a date later than November 1 if it so desires.
In this connection, I would point out in reply to a question put to me last Friday by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) that as of this moment nine of the ten provinces are operating under new agreements, made effective earlier this year, providing for a maximum $46 monthly rate of benefit. One province-the province of Newfoundland-had raised its old age assistance rate from $30 to $40 as recently as September, 1956, and did not apparently feel

that it was in a position, less than one year later, in the early part of this year, to revise its level of benefit upwards to $46. The old age assistance rate continues, therefore, in the province of Newfoundland at the $40 level at the present time.
This brings me to a question raised by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick) who wished to know the distribution of costs between the provinces so far as this increased old age assistance is concerned. I have a table here giving this information. It is brief, and I might just as well read it:
Estimated Additional Cost of Old Age Assistance Changes to Provinces
(1958-9)
Newfoundland	 $ 360,000
Prince Edward Island ...	45,000
Nova Scotia	 360,000
New Brunswick	 405,000
Quebec	 2,220,000
Ontario	 1,480,000
Manitoba	 320,000
Saskatchewan	 360,000
Alberta	 395,000
British Columbia	 500,000
Yukon Territory	 2,500
Northwest Territories ...	7,500

The hon. member for Trinity-Conception will be interested to note from this table that the extra cost to the province of Newfoundland of implementing these present changes would be roughly $360,000 in a full year. It should, of course, be added that this does not include the added cost to Newfoundland of the additional $6, approved earlier this year, which has not yet been put into effect in that province. That would amount to perhaps an additional $200,000 in a full year.
Mr. Speaker, a number of members have referred to individual cases of which they have knowledge where they consider some injustice has been done because of the operation of certain ill-advised regulations or for other reasons. I hope I will be forgiven if I do not endeavour to deal with these individual cases in the course of this debate. The details of individual cases are not in the hands of the federal authorities; they can be obtained only from the provinces.
So far as the regulations are concerned, I have frankly, not yet had the time to examine them in detail as I should like to do before debating their merits or otherwise. I realize that there are numerous grounds for complaint about the regulations when viewed from the point of view of the individual applicant or the member who speaks on his behalf. I can only promise that I will undertake, as soon as feasible, a study of these regulations; that I will consult fully and
Old Age Assistance Act freely with the provinces in regard to them; and that when we and the provinces are agreed on the changes to be made, I will be glad to report and explain those changes in the house.
I will conclude these comments, Mr. Speaker, by referring to a point of some importance to which no member of the house has, as yet, drawn attention. The question may arise in some minds as to why we are not proposing an amendment to the Old Age Assistance Act similar to the Old Age Security Act amendment, in respect of temporary absences. The answer is, of course, that in the case of old age assistance, this provision with respect to temporary absences is dealt with, not in the act itself, but in the regulations. We are ready, after consultation with the provinces, to change the old age assistance regulation on temporary absences in whatever way the provinces may consider reasonable.


Leonard T. Stick: Will the minister table the figures he read out?


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the minister read the table in full. It will be reported in Hansard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment briefly on this particular bill. We have made our submission in chief on the resolution stage and there is no need to traverse the whole field now, because we did it the other day. However, I should like to make one or two observations based on what the minister has just said.
He has told us he does not yet know how many provinces will take advantage of this enabling legislation, although last Friday I understood him to say, and, indeed, he repeated it today, that he had properly forwarded to the provinces copies of the bill which is now before the house. Do I understand the minister to say that notwithstanding this he has not yet heard by telegram from any of the provinces as to its intention in this regard?
The minister also observed that he had not yet had the opportunity to examine the regulations which provide for the administration of this particular measure, this being in the hands of the provincial authorities. In this connection he might, it seems to me, indicate in the course of this discussion whether or not it is the intention of the federal government to suggest to the provinces that the dominion-provincial pensions board which meets for the discussion of these regulations is likely to sit before the end of this year, not only to consider those regulations which are not acceptable to the minister,
7G8

Old Age Assistance Act if that should eventuate, but likewise to provide for whatever modifications in the existing regulations are thought to be desirable and necessary pursuant to the amendments which are now put forward, and which we on this side of the house have already indicated we accept.
There is no formula established, notwithstanding my hon. friend's obiter dictum yesterday, on any particular mechanism by which pensions hereafter can be geared either to the cost of living or to the gross national product. In that connection I would point out there has been some slight reduction, if my information is correct, in the gross national product. My hon. friend can see at once the implications of that situation as a result of the assurances which have been given in this particular context.
And then, of course, one is obliged to point out that this bill does not present what was urged upon the government in office before June 10 by the hon. gentlemen who now sit in the treasury benches. The government of that day was urged by the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green), the Acting Prime Minister today, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself, by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness), by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) and by many other hon. members sitting on that side of the house, that the means test in the Old Age Assistance Act should be eliminated. Many days were spent in urging the government of the day to take that step and I simply point out at this time that as nothing was indicated in the resolution likewise nothing is now indicated in the bill to carry out the requests and the suggestions in that particular made so vigorously over a period of days by many of the hon. gentlemen who no^ sit on Mr. Speaker's right. When we get into a clause by clause discussion of the bill, Mr. Speaker, I will have one or two other observations to make.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, there is one question of detail which I do not think is generally known and I think it should be made known by the minister. If a person cannot prove his age by any other means he can have a tribunal of people who have known him over a number of years. I feel it should be made generally known that it is possible for a person who cannot prove his age by ordinary means to have this tribunal and be successful in qualifying for assistance under the act.


Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, our views regarding the qjnount of the pension have been expressed on former


occasions and it is not necessary to deal with the amount provided for in the bill.
Once again I want to stress that it is our belief that the group 65 to 69 years of age ought to be included under the terms of the Old Age Security Act. I say this for the reason that provincial governments are called upon to meet ever-growing responsibilities in the provision of medical health care, nursing home care, the provision of housing and so forth for our senior citizens. The inclusion of this group which is presently taken care of to some extent in the legislation before us within the terms of the Old Age Security Act would enable the provinces to do more in this particular field and I do suggest that it is a constantly increasing responsibility as far as the provinces are concerned.
Some reference was made a moment ago to the means test. Once again the inclusion of the age 65 to 69 group under the Old Age Security Act with the federal government undertaking the responsibility for the payment of the pension cheques would have the effect of removing the means test to the abolition of which a great many hon. members in this house subscribe.
I will conclude these brief observations by saying we are in full support of the bill and want to see it passed as quickly as possible. I suggest that the minister and the government give serious consideration to the lowering of the age under the terms of the Old Age Security Act in order that all people in Canada 65 years of age and over will receive equal treatment irrespective of the province of residence free of the means test.


Thomas James Irwin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words regarding this act. I do not think there will be too much discussion about the amount of assistance to be granted under the act because we have already had a great deal of discussion during the debate on the resolution. As far as this group is concerned we are going to go along with those who vote for this bill despite the fact, as has already been expressed, we do not believe the amount of assistance under the act is sufficient to meet the needs of those who require it.
My sojourn in the provincial legislature of British Columbia brought me into close contact with the operation of this statute and many of the people who are subservient to the regulations passed under this act. Although the minister disclaimed any intention of saying anything at the present time about the regulations I think some comment should be made upon them because although no question exists as to the desirability of having such an act and while the regulations have

not stultified the intention of the act they have nevertheless definitely curtailed its real effect.
So far as I am concerned I am in agreement with the purpose of this amendment despite the obvious inadequacy of the proposal to raise the assistance from $46 to $55. Why do I say it is inadequate? The hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) in speaking the other day sought to justify the increase of $6 granted by the Liberal government earlier this year by pointing out that the sum of $6 represented a 15 per cent increase. I agree with the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. Figures do not lie but the trouble is that since the act was passed in 1951 the cost of living has risen by approximately 10 per cent. In light of the fact that the $6 represented a 15 per cent increase it appears on the face of it to have been a fairly generous increase but let us examine it a little more closely.
Under the legislation it is assumed that old age assistance was adequate in 1951; that is the only basis for assuming that the 15 per cent increase was generous. It must also be assumed that the $40 payment based on the 1949 consumer's price index was sufficient. I point out to you that that is not correct. The assistance was inadequate long before that. The purchasing power of the dollar in 1949 had been pared to the point here its purchasing power in terms of the 1935-39 cost of living index was approximately 52 cents and by September 1957 that had dropped to approximately 46 cents. In the light of these figures which can be verified by consulting the publication of the dominion bureau of statistics the $40 pension granted under the original act was entirely and hopelessly inadequate.
The factor that has helped the pensioners of British Columbia is that the supplementary allowance granted by the province amounts to $20 a month under a means test. The average payment is $19.12 to each pensioner over all classes of old age assistance recipients. I have every reason to believe that British Columbia will maintain the present supplementary payment thus bringing old age assistance in that province to $75 per month. It may be pointed out that in addition to this those in receipt of supplementary payments are also entitled to medical, dental, optical and hospital treatment. Thus it is evident that the goal of providing $100 per month to those who require old age assistance has already been reached as far as that province is concerned.
The objective of better treatment has not been lost sight of. Because of all the foregoing conditions, many of our elderly citizens 96698-49
Old Age Assistance Act cannot enjoy the comforts and pleasures to which their services to this country entitle them.
The present regulations under which the act is administered produce many hardships. For instance, take the case of a couple living say, in Manitoba; when the lady of that couple has reached the age of 64 we will assume that her husband passes away and the couple have children living in British Columbia. These children say to their mother "Look mother, there is no object in your staying alone in Manitoba, you might just as well come to British Columbia." So the lady goes. Now when she reaches the age of 65 she applies for old age assistance in British Columbia; she cannot get it because she has not been resident in British Columbia for three years. She then returns to Manitoba and applies there; she cannot get it in Manitoba either because she left that province before she was 65 years of age. The tragedy of this situation is that this lady will never get old age assistance under the present regulations because her initial application is held against her for the rest of her natural life. She could live to the age of Methuselah and she will never get this assistance under the present regulation.
Again take the case of an applicant who owns his or her own property. Five per cent of the assessed value of such property is deducted as income. The idea is that such people are not paying rent and the country does not intend to contribute to the establishment of an estate. That is the reason given for the regulations. The net result of course is that the 5 per cent simply raises the municipal taxes on that property. That is all that happens. It is all very well to say these people are not paying rent but the fact remains that they are paying taxes and those taxes, insurance and so forth are the basis of rent. Why add to that amount by adding 5 per cent of the assessed value?
Again if a person has beyond a certain amount in the bank or if they have an insurance policy that insurance policy must be surrendered and the income therefrom, plus any surplus in the bank, must be invested in a government of Canada annuity, the proceeds of which are regarded as income. It is entirely overlooked that these people who have such surplus in the bank and particularly such an insurance policy realize that without this protection, where there is a couple, one of them being left after the other has passed away, the one who is left has no insurance and will be without the wherewithal to give a decent burial to the deceased partner. Again there is no reason to believe that the people who have accumulated an amount during their lifetime did

Old Age Assistance Act not intend to spend it on the necessary comforts they hoped to have in their old age.
May I suggest to the government that they give our elderly citizens some consideration with respect to the matter of housing because that is an extremely important factor to the old age pensioner. I listened to my hon. friend from, I believe, somewhere in Toronto who spoke yesterday referring to the fact that they have a housing scheme in that city which provides bachelor quarters for old age pensioners at $35 per month. In view of the fact that Ontario does not pay any supplement may I point out that these people are getting only $55 per month and if they pay from this income the $35 a month for the shelter which they require, that will leave them a margin of only $20 per month upon which to live for the rest of that period. I submit that it is not a practical proposition to expect these people to live on $20 per month.
The suggestion has been made in my province that the federal government under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation could make special provisions for these elderly people who wish to get together and establish a community of their own, more or less on the lines carried out in Rotterdam during the reconstruction of that city. They would then be in a position of having their own village-if you wish to call it that-or it could easily be done in the form of another type of community which they would themselves administer and look after. They would then have an interest in life and would be able to provide the housing they require. It could easily be arranged that the income of anyone participating in such a scheme would not be such that they would be occupying premises needed for those living on lower incomes.
Another suggestion I would like the government to consider is this. My friends over there have been advocating that the means test be removed from the recipients of old age assistance in the age group from 65-69. I am inclined to go along with that up to a point but I would like to see the Old Age Assistance Act and the Old Age Security Act combined into one act with a means test, but that means test to apply solely to the eligibility of the person concerned to pay income tax. That is to say if a person or a couple were required to pay income tax since their relative tax would be more than their exemptions of $2,500 in the case of persons over 65, then when they become eligible for old age security at 65, they would be subject to that means test only. This would do away with all these other inflictions upon the elderly citizens of our country and give them


a reasonable chance to enjoy the amenities which our productive system can provide.
We have been niggling and chiseling with respect to this question and the time has come to look at this problem-and it is a problem-from the point of view of our Christian civilization and our Christian approach to life. Let us look at this matter as a Christian community trying to do its best to look after the needs of those who have reached the point where they cannot meet their requirements themselves.
Governments and legislatures must change their policy and we must change this economic system of ours immediately. These things have got to be done as quickly as possible to strike the bonds of economic slavery from our people and give them freedom to live their lives in their own way wherever they wish to live them. We should give the hungry bread and the fruits of the earth will be theirs. I appeal to this government and this legislature in the name of the God to whom we here offer prayers every day to free the poor from slavery and want and feed the peoples of this earth lest they perish as a result of our neglect.


Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, the words I have to say on this matter are very few. I was very interested in the constructive remarks of the gentleman who has just resumed his seat. I think his comments bearing on the regulations with regard to old age pensions and old age assistance are worthy of note and they just point up the fact that these matters require our constant attention. Much of the administration of these acts are left in the hands of the provinces and we know that the applying of the means test and all the rest of it can be a very expensive operation. I think this house is to be congratulated on the fact that it is bringing down with such rapidity this social legislation. It may not be all that we had hoped for, but at any rate, the house has got down to work in a very short time. The debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne has been interrupted to get the legislation through with commendable rapidity. We have had legislation concerning cash advances, old age security, old age assistance, assistance to the blind and pension increases for those who are totally disabled.
In looking at this legislation, I wonder if we do not find in it something that is the real cause of a great deal of difficulty across the whole of Canada today, and that is the matter of inflation. The reason that we have to increase these pensions and allowances is that people find they are

unable to make ends meet on these allowances. They are in a condition of dire necessity and some of the cases are very tragic. A person cannot possibly live in most of the communities in this dominion of ours on the $40 per month or even the $46 per month. Fundamentally there is a big problem facing the Canadian people and this legislation points it out. It is the matter of inflation. When and where are those people who are in control of things in this country going to meet the problem of inflation. We drew the attention of the government to these facts during the speech from the throne, but apparently they neglected to do anything about them.
What is troubling the people who are trying to produce? I know that so far as the prairies are concerned, and I believe it is true in the rest of Canada, the big problem people are meeting today is one of the rising cost of production. Each day the costs go up. Involved in this problem of social legislation is the problem of people trying to make ends meet, to keep their business going. The matter of inflation is too serious to be neglected for very long. The idea of putting a little patch here or there is not going to remedy the situation. A few years ago we were told in this house that the cause of inflation was too much money chasing too few goods. This was the story the minister of finance gave us; it was the story the critics gave us and it was accepted by the Canadian people. But today, we have a different situation. We have a supply of goods. There is no scarcity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know the hon. member does not wish to turn this debate into a debate on the question of inflation, but it seems to me he is moving in that direction. I just remind him of that.


George Hugh Castleden: Thank you very much. I think even you, Mr. Speaker, would admit that inflation is the basic cause behind the need for these amendments. If we could do something about reducing the cost of living by 30 per cent, then we would be bringing this kind of social legislation to all the people of Canada. We are pleased to support the increases in pension for these people who find that because of the increased cost of living the money which they are receiving does not meet their needs. I hope the government, if it does not do anything about inflation, will be prepared to introduce a further amendment next year and then, if the cost of living continues to rise, will introduce another one in 1959.
It has been suggested that it might be a good idea to link the pensions with the cost of living index. We will support this measure, 96698-49J
Old Age Assistance Act and we will be glad to see it go through. It will help a number of people, but it will not help them for very long if we do not prevent inflation. I would suggest to the government that in the forthcoming dominion-provincial conference they look into this problem of having uniform regulations to cover all the people in these social assistance brackets. Something should be done towards providing equal treatment to all the people in all provinces. It is an unfortunate thing when, as the previous speaker mentioned, a person moves from one province to another and forfeits his right to this assistance. This is wrong. Surely while the provincial ministers are here at the conference, they could take a look at this social legislation.
People come under the Old Age Assistance Act because their income is too low or because, in many cases, their ability to earn has been curtailed by illness. These people do not voluntarily put themselves in this position. If one studies and works with these people for any length of time one finds that their greatest need is not necessarily money. They do not want a handout. They would like to make their contributions to society. If you can find some work for those who are partially crippled, find something for them to justify their existence so that they feel they are of some use in the world, then you will be doing a great deal more than merely providing them with the money upon which to live. I feel that, with that attitude, we can solve these problems. I feel our efforts should be directed towards enabling these people to help themselves and take part in the life of the community in which they live.
Modern industry all too soon casts on the ash heap the people who cannot keep up with the machinery as it is turning around. It is a sad thing that a man, while still in the vigour of life, finds himself out of work. Society will not have completed its task or its duty to these citizens who have given so much to this country until that part of the lives of our citizens is looked after as well as their physical needs.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the others who have spoken in favour of the bill that is before us. We do not feel that $55 is sufficient to give to the people who come under this legislation their fair share, their rightful share, of the great resources of this country. We certainly do feel that such a move is necessary at this time because of the very drastic rise in the cost of living.
I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schulz) yesterday when he pointed out,
772	HOUSE OF
Old Age Assistance Act very ably I thought, the very serious impact that inflation and the rising cost of living have had and are still having on all of the government's welfare legislation, including the present measure. I feel that the increases from time to time in the cost of living make it necessary for us to look at our welfare legislation, and they have made the current amendments absolutely necessary.
However, I do feel that there should be some method by which there could be more frequent adjustments of the amounts paid out under this legislation as a result of the changes in the cost of living. In the past the delays in making changes have been far too lengthy to catch up with the very rapid increase in the cost of living. I am afraid that as the days go by right now, and as they will after this legislation becomes law, we will probably see a repetition of what has taken place in the past.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We have a new minister.


Hazen Robert Argue: We have a new minister. I am not arguing about that, but the reports that come out in the newspapers would not indicate there had been a new minister or any number of new ministers or even a change in the government. On this very question, I see in today's Toronto Globe and Mail a headline to the effect that we now, for the seventh month, have a rise in the cost of living index. It has reached a new peak.
While we have a new Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) who is apparently trying to do something for the people affected under this legislation to help compensate them in some way for this rise in cost of living, I think he might have some discussion with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and other members of the cabinet in order to see what can be done to protect the legislation that we are today passing.
Legislation has been brought forward to deal with increases in the old age security pension, blind pension, war veterans allowance, old age assistance and so on. However, it seems to me that in the field of welfare legislation there is one act which has obviously been by-passed by the present administration. In the days ahead I hope this omission may be rectified. I refer to the fact that there has been no announcement that there is to be a comparable and substantial increase in family allowances so that the purchasing power of the family allowance might be restored at least to the degree that it is being restored under the present legislation. I would suggest to the minister that there should be an increase


in the family allowance by 60 per cent, as compared with the value of family allowances when they were first enacted in this country in 1944. If that minimum thing were done, it would restore the purchasing power of 1944 and 1945 to today's family allowances.
There is one other suggestion I want to make with reference to the provisions of this bill. In this act we have, as we have in many other acts, something of cost-sharing with the provinces. While this provision is made contributory in many ways, I feel that the federal government contribution should always be the larger amount or should always be a substantial amount, so that all the provinces may be able to share in this type of legislation.
I was pleased to hear the minister say this afternoon, as I believe he did, that he felt it was likely that all of the provinces would be able to share in the increase provided for in this legislation and make it available to persons within their provinces. We have a new minister as the minister suggests. We have a great many new ministers. We have many new faces in this house. Speaking for myself, I can say quite honestly that it is a refreshing thing when I speak now to have what appear to be so many interested members. I think part of the reason for that situation is that the government at this time has not a great preponderance of members in the house such as we experienced for so many years. It seems to me that members on both sides of the house are today much more in tune with public opinion than they were in many years gone by. We in this group felt that we were advancing the things that the people of the country wanted but when we faced the government on the opposite side with such an overwhelming majority we found that in many instances, our pleas fell on deaf ears.
As to the progress being made in this session so far,-and I include the progress which is being made in this legislation now before us-it would seem to me that we are making more and better progress with the house divided as it now is than we have made in any other year since I first came here in 1945. I think the government is much more likely to listen to public opinion and to listen to members of the house when it is a minority government than it is when it has a preponderant majority. While certain people may feel most uncomfortable about the present balance of power amongst the various parties in the House of Commons, I would suggest that the balance prevailing in the house today works and that it is

getting results for the Canadian people in reference to the legislation that is now being discussed. It seems to me that there are persons who are extremely uncomfortable in this present situation and it seems to me that most, if not all, of them are supporters and members of the government.
I have in my hand here today's Globe and Mail. It contains a statement attributed to the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell), the national president-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member proposes to read from the newspaper in support of the observations he has just been making I would remind him that they are not strictly in order on the second reading of this bill. He therefore may be taking up the time of the house unnecessarily by that digression, however interesting it may be.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, your observations may be correct within the rules of this house but it would seem to me that it is something of a reflection on the work we are now doing in this house when a member of the house- the member to whom I have just referred-[DOT] makes a speech in which he says that an early election is not probable or possible, but that it is a certainty. I am wondering whether this government really intends to come to grips with the great problems that face this nation or whether it is going to be content with placing a few small patches on the garment represented by the difficult problems or the difficult condition in many respects, of the Canadian economy today and hope to escape by going to the country at an early date. As I understand public opinion in this country today, the people want members of parliament to stay in parliament and to do the business of the country as we are now doing it, and they will not give their general support to those members who go around the country and, instead of discussing legislation that is necessary, start threatening us and others with the possibility of an early election.


Mr. Speaker:: May I inform the house that if the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, in rising in my place I do not intend by any means to announce the date of a future election in answer to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). However, I would point out that we are amending this act to increase the amount of benefit payable to the recipient from $46 a month to $55 a month. We are also reducing the period of residence required from 20 years to 10 years. Those are the two fundamental points in the bill.
Old Age Assistance Act
I pointed out that the period of absence will be adjusted in the regulations. In my opening remarks I also pointed out that I would examine the regulations at my first opportunity. All I can do is repeat that assurance and leave the matter at that.
The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) said he recalls that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness), the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) have all advocated abolition of the means test. I have looked through Hansard for some of those quotations. I do not recall them. Probably the hon. member could give them to me some time.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I can give them to you now. Does my hon. friend want them right now?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No; not right at the moment.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I have them here. I have the page references and everything.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Good.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you mention
it in your speech?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I did.


Mr. Gauthier (Porlneuf):: Why didn't you read it?


Jay Waldo Monteith: We feel that we are fulfilling our immediate election undertaking in respect of old age security and of all of these related acts by the amendments we are bringing in at this time. I do not think I need say any more. Others have accused us of not living up to our election pledges. All I can say is I believe that the Canadian people will believe we are doing so.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
On clause 1-Agreements with provinces.
Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Can the minister tell us how many additional pensioners it is thought will be brought under the amended legislation, assuming the participation of 10 provinces?


Jay Waldo Monteith: It will probably mean an additional increase of 5,000 in the case load.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I think it is clearly understood that there are two basic amendments in the bill. Since this is enabling legislation, a province would not be obliged to accept both provisions. It might agree to the reduction of the age and not to the increase in the basic allowance. Is that my hon. friend's understanding?

Old Age Assistance Act


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am sorry.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I am assuming that since this is enabling legislation, a province, in the agreement which it signs with the federal government, is not obliged to accept the benefits of the two amendments which are now proposed. It might agree to accept the provision having to do with the reduction in the period of residence but do nothing about the increase in the basic amount. While my hon. friend is dealing with that question will he indicate whether or not in fact two provinces have already said that that is exactly how far they will proceed?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, no province to our knowledge has indicated, officially at any rate, that it does not intend to follow both amendments. Unless they amend their own legislation, revise their own regulations, to go along with us on this bill they will not coincide in both cases.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Would it not be more correct to say that no province has indicated its intention at all in the matter?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I did not say at any stage, Mr. Chairman, that any province had indicated its intention. All I said was that we have been co-operating with the provinces in discussing the future regulations which have to be signed so that we can put this into force as quickly as possible.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: My hon. friend and I are not really at cross purposes. I am simply indicating the implication in what he has said thus far is that no province has yet acknowledged receipt of a copy of the bill which was sent out on Friday last, and the minister is therefore not in a position to say whether any province will or will not accept.
When I spoke at the resolution stage of this matter I indicated and suggested that the minister should bear in mind the lurking danger in this particular instance as far as the provinces are concerned. He will find in the departmental files, as he has probably already found, some reasons and some justification for the suggestion I am now going to make. All of the provinces do not have supplementary payments and there are cases of need that cannot be met by the action of one of the senior levels of government. In those provinces where supplementary payments are provided a greater opportunity to meet special cases of need is afforded. That is true of the province of British Columbia, where the most generous supplementary allowance scheme exists and to a lesser extent in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and, to a much lesser extent, in the

very limited supplementary arrangements provided for in the province of Ontario. In the other provinces no supplementary allowance is provided.
I hope my hon. friend will be aware of the possibility of a weakening in existing supplementary allowances on the part of provinces which have them, and a discouragement on the part of those provinces that do not have them, of embarking upon what I believe is the only mechanism possible for properly dealing with those very special cases of need which do exist. I hope that in the formulation of his policy my hon. friend has borne this very important factor in mind.


Jay Waldo Monteith: From what I can gather, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is intimating that it would appear to me that it is a matter for the provincial and municipal authorities to decide and I do not feel like dictating to them.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Will the minister tell us the date upon which the provinces were first made aware of the details of these amendments.


Jay Waldo Monteith: When the resolution passed the house the provinces were immediately informed by wire. Once the bill had been given second reading a copy of it was immediately sent to them by air mail. I presume they probably received it yesterday.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Can the minister state what replies, if any, have been received from the provinces?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No reply has been received.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the question of sharing the cost of this act and of similar acts between the provinces and the federal government on the agenda as a matter to be discussed at the coming federal-provincial conference? I merely express the hope it will be discussed and considered somewhere in the scope of fiscal policy or fiscal arrangements. Certainly, in actual practice and in actual fact this is a very important part of the financial responsibility of the provinces, as well as an important part of the financial responsibility of the federal government. Will facilities be available for discussing the sharing of the allocation of costs of this legislation and other similar legislation?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
think the Prime Minister's letter to the various provincial premiers has been tabled, and it is intimated in that letter that the fiscal policy arrangements are going to be discussed. It has also been intimated that hospital insurance might be discussed. I do not think that any closure has been put on what might be-


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a question? Since the door is not closed on this type of discussion, can the minister say whether he knows that such a discussion will be provided.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not. No formal agenda has been drawn up.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would think this is rather an important matter. The minister has just said that when the dominion-provincial conference meets, on the 25th I think it is, for a two-day conference, hospital insurance, for instance, could be one of the items discussed. That was the statement the minister made two days ago in answer to a question from this side of the house, but if the minister will look at the correspondence between the Prime Minister of Canada and the premier of Saskatchewan he will find that is not the case. The Prime Minister of Canada has said that will not be a subject for discussion, so the hon. member for Assiniboia-


Jay Waldo Monteith: I suggest the hon. member should look at the letter sent to the premier of Manitoba.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will do that in a moment, but I was calling attention to the letter to the premier of Saskatchewan. This is an important matter, having in mind the point made by the hon. member for Assiniboia that there should be an opportunity for discussion-


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think this is all out of order. We are not discussing the clause in the bill which raises the amount payable from $46 to $55.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I point out with respect, Mr. Chairman, that it is not out of order, because this measure will not become operative unless the provinces accept this legislation; the payments approved under it will not be available to any citizen in any one of the provinces. That is a fact.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We are providing an
opportunity for the provinces to come in under this act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is why I believe the observation made by the hon. member for Assiniboia and the comments made by myself have a very great bearing on the question at the present time. I can see where a province which is worrying about the cost of hospital insurance-


Jay Waldo Monteith: I appreciate that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And I know that point was troubling some of the
Old Age Assistance Act provinces. Having in mind what their contribution	under	that	scheme	is	goingto be, and also having in mind what their contribution	under	this	scheme	is	going
to be, they will want to review not the one question but the whole question in these talks. I think the minister will agree that throughout our present discussions I have sought to be co-operative, and I hope I will continue to be co-operative, but I think he has put himself in a rather difficult position-or he has been put in a rather difficult position-by the letter of the Prime Minister to the premier of Saskatchewan and particularly by the Prime Minister's statement the other day that there was no commitment whatsoever, notwithstanding what the Minister of National Health and Welfare said, by the government of Canada, with regard to one item in the health and welfare program of Canada, the cost of which has got to be considered not only by this government but by other provincial governments as well.


Mr. McLeod:: Mr. Chairman, in connection with this bill and one of the clauses thereof I should like to make a few remarks and offer a suggestion to the minister.
We notice that this legislation, like all similar welfare measures which have been brought before the house, places the onus on all the provinces to accept certain terms offered by the federal government. We know that some of the far western provinces of this country pay bonuses in addition to what is authorized by federal statute, and I do think the time has come for the federal government to give consideration to the legislation which exists in those provinces.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask the minister if he will give consideration to the deletion of certain words which he will find in line 13 of clause 1, namely "Fifty per cent of fifty-five dollars monthly or" and then the deletion of the words in line 15 "whichever is the lesser".
The clause would then read, in part:
The minister, with the approval of the governor in council, may, on behalf of the government of Canada, make an agreement with the province to provide for the payment to the province, in accordance with this act and the regulations, of amounts in respect of assistance paid by the province pursuant to provincial law, not exceeding, in respect of any recipient, fifty per cent of the amount of assistance paid by the province monthly to the recipient.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the time has come for the federal government to take another look at the whole question of this legislation and offer to co-operate with those provinces

Old Age Assistance Act who are trying to alleviate the position of those persons for whom they are providing assistance.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I understand the effect of such a suggestion as this would actually be the lowering of allowances in some provinces below the $55 figure. The suggestion would also mean going back to the governor general to get a new resolution to bring before the house.
As I said earlier, we are simply making it possible for the provinces to participate in increasing these allowances from $46 to $55 a month, and to reduce the residence period from 20 years to 10.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to have a word to say with respect to the responsibility for fixing the regulations concerning the means test. I notice that under this legislation the allowable income for a single person is $960. For a married person and his spouse it is $1,620, and for a married person with a spouse who is blind, $1,980 a year. This means, of course, that these people are on a means test.
I should like to know who makes the regulations governing the means test. Is it done by agreement between this government and the provincial governments? If it is, then I think some of us have a small grievance in respect of the rigidity of these regulations, these restrictions under which the means test operates. For example, I noticed some time ago that on one of these forms a question was asked of some old people: how much have you had given to you in the form of vegetables? Now that is a tiny little thing. I know of a case where people did answer the question by saying: yes, we received a few sacks of potatoes. And yet that was considered as part of their income.
I took the matter up with the officials concerned and said I thought this was drawing the line pretty thinly, because these people had relatives who were farmers, and these farmers gave these people some vegetables. Farmers usually raise a lot of vegetables. They feed turnips to their hogs, and potatoes to their cows, and it is a very little thing for farmers to give vegetables to old people. And yet under this means test the question to which I have referred was asked.
I had another case brought to my attention where a young couple had a home in a village. They had that home for the purpose of returning to it after spending a busy day in town. They had a spare room in their house which they offered to their mother and when it came to analysing the income of that woman who was a widow it was
considered that the room was worth a certain amount of money and was taken into account as part of the over-all means test.
I recall another case where a widow in receipt of old age assistance decided that two could live cheaper than one and so when the opportunity presented itself she took in a lady school teacher as a boarder. She thought perhaps she could make a little bit of money that way although it was not her intention to overdo the matter, but when it came to the means test the modest amount she received was considered as part of her income. These instances are almost too infinitesimal to even bother about, yet this unfair practice exists.
I know of another case involving an elderly lady who was in receipt of old age assistance. It was her custom to visit her daughter on a farm during the busy season of the year in order to help out by baby sitting, washing dishes and that sort of thing. She was on the farm for several weeks each year and the officials wanted to consider that as part of something she received in the nature of free room and board which affected her overall circumstances.
I think that sort of thing is drawing the line too thin. When I have taken these cases up with the officials my answer has been, "Well, these are the regulations. We do not like to think we are picayune about these things but, you see, when the officials of the department come along and examine these cases and draw out the files and look them over they get after us if we do not administer the regulations properly." That is the story they tell me.
May I ask the minister who it is that makes these regulations and why do the regulations include such small things as those I have described? Surely a son can provide a room in which his mother can live without it affecting her pension under the means test. Surely vegetables and perhaps occasionally some groceries can be given to these people without it having this effect. What difference does it make? It is such a small matter it should surely make no difference at all. Who makes these regulations? Does the minister not think that at least in some instances the regulations governing the means test are pretty restrictive?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I would be very happy to point out to the hon. member for Macleod that the information which he has just requested is set out very distinctly under section 11, subsection 2 of the Old Age Assistance Act dealing with the alteration of regulations. Section 11, subsection 2 reads as follows:
No regulation by reference to which an agreement with a province has been made shall be

altered, except with the consent of the province or in accordance with the regulations to which it has agreed.
Subsection 3 of the same section dealing with the advisory board reads:
There shall be an advisory board consisting of two representatives of the government of Canada, appointed by the governor in council, and two representatives of each of the provinces with which agreements have been made, appointed by the governor in council on the recommendation of such provinces, to recommend such alterations to the regulations as may from time to time appear to be necessary or advisable.
Now, at the present moment there are some changes in the regulations and these have gone out to the provinces. As I mentioned earlier I can appreciate the fact that there are a lot of individual cases which undoubtedly come to the attention of hon. members and which may appear to be very much cases of hardship. If the hon. member for Macleod would give me the details of any cases with which he is familiar I would certainly have them looked into when, as I said earlier, I make a close examination and study of the regulations which I hope to do in the very near future.


Ernest George Hansell: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister; and now may I ask this. Are these regulations standard throughout the country in all provinces or do they differ from province to province?


Jay Waldo Monteith: They are standard, yes.


Ernest George Hansell: Agreed to by the provinces.


Mr. Houck:: Mr. Chairman, I think I understood the minister correctly but if I did not perhaps he could correct me. I understood the minister to make a statement a few moments ago to the effect that some of the provinces would have to pass legislation corresponding to this legislation. If that is a fact, Mr. Minister, would not the people in those provinces have to wait until that legislation is passed? If it is passed eventually, will those payments be made retroactive to the first of the month?


Jay Waldo Monteith: That will be a matter for the provinces to decide but actually in the past, as I understand it, we have gone ahead. It has been the practice, I might say, to actually implement the increase and make it retroactive on the understanding that the legislation which does have to be changed will be changed at the forthcoming session.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Blind Persons Act
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: Now, by leave?


Some hon. Members:: By leave.


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



BLIND PERSONS ACT


Jay Waldo Monteith: the second reading of Bill No. 21, an act to amend the Blind Persons Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I might make a few remarks. I do not think much can be said at this time on second reading of the bill in addition to what I said in my opening statement when the resolution was introduced. I answered the questions raised by hon. members opposite as the debate proceeded. I think I might only remind the house at this stage that the purpose of the amending bill is twofold: first, to raise the maximum allowance to $55 monthly if the provinces agree and, second, to raise correspondingly the income ceilings by $120 a year in the case of unmarried recipients and $240 a year in the case of married recipients.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, we have already agreed with this amendment but I would simply point out in this connection that this bill likewise makes no provision for those things which hon. gentlemen opposite have urged including the elimination of the means test particularly in the case of the blind.
My hon. friend questioned awhile ago my assertion about the position taken by the hon. members opposite. I would like to draw his attention to the references to this particular measure and to others which could be found for his perusal at page 5070 in volume V of Hansard in the words attributed to the present Acting Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green).


An hon. Member:: What year?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: 1952 and 1953 and then in volume I for 1952-1953 at page 90 the words attributed to the hon. member for Middlesex East and at page 476 of Hansard of

Blind Persons Act
January 21, 1957, the statement made in the speech on the address in the words attributed to the Minister of Agriculture and to the Prime Minister when he spoke in the house on April 11, 1957.
I have not taken the time of the house to read these various statements which will however show that these hon. gentlemen now sitting in the treasury benches urged very vigorously the elimination of the means test with regard to the measure now before us, and this was done in a very exceptional way, not only with regard to the elimination of the means test but also to the establishment of special guiding allowances. Therefore I am sure my hon. friend will want to look at what I have said in the light of his statement a few moments ago.
I apologize to him that I have not been able to find the letter from the Prime Minister to the premier of Ontario which will confirm, unless my recollection is very wrong, what I said a moment ago regarding the inclusion of certain items in the agenda of the dominion-provincial conference on November 25. If I am in error on that point of course I would quickly apologize to my hon. friend but I do not believe I am. I saw the letter this morning-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Did you say Ontario?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was a letter from the Prime Minister of Canada to the premier of Saskatchewan specifically denying what my hon. friend himself said a few . moments ago that it would be included as an item in the agenda of the dominion-provincial conference.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I did not say it would be included; I said it could be included.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I apologize; my hon. friend is correct, he said it could be included. What I was pointing out was that the Prime Minister himself said in the letter to the premier of Saskatchewan that it could not be, which is in direct contradiction of what my hon. friend has now said. I am sure when he comes to examine that he will want to give further consideration to the reply he has made. I am sure that the house generally will accept this amendment because there is no class of people outside of those who are permanently disabled for whom this parliament and I believe other legislative bodies would be happier to provide material assistance by way of the amendment.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, while we welcome the amendment providing for increased allowances I was rather disappointed that the minister in his
[Mr. Martin (Essex East).)
short statement did not refer specifically to the remarks made the other night regarding special guiding allowances. There have been representations, of which the minister denies knowledge, made to members of parliament for a number of years specifically requesting special allowances, free from a means test by the government of Canada for all blind adults to cover the cost of guiding and other essential expenses peculiar to blindness. All members are aware that blindness imposes economic and vocational limitations; it makes necessary additional expenses for guiding, and vocational maintenance, to approximate the general proficiency achieved by sighted people by virtue of their possessing good vision. Under the circumstances I think the minister should see the merit of these representations that our blind pensioners while they incur ordinary expenses, which we of course maintain are not adequately provided for in the amount of the pension of $55, nevertheless have expenses over and above those incurred by people with good vision.
I would therefore suggest to the minister that he take a second look at these recommendations and make some provisions for a specific allowance to our sightless citizens, free of a means test to enable them to live on a standard comparable with other pensioners in this country who, by virtue of their sight, do not have the extra expenses attendant upon our blind citizens.
With this observation I am sure the arguments which have been raised on the other resolutions and other bills dealing with the amount of $55 apply here with equal force. I would like the minister when he closes this debate to indicate to us whether the government is prepared to give consideration to the recommendations of our blind organizations that the allowances I have just described be provided for.


Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resligouche-Mada-waska):: I would just like to say a word or two in connection with this bill. I certainly would have hoped to see the means test abolished with respect to all pensioners in our country. However, 1 do find a little comfort in the fact that the members of this house are in agreement as to the objectivity of the abolition of the means test at the earliest possible date.


Wilfrid Lacroix: Mr. Speaker, it is now five o'clock.


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

Private Bills



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Douglas Jung (Vancouver Centre) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 18, respecting British Columbia Telephone Company.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Douglas Jung: Private Bills
further with the operations of the company.
I am, therefore, giving my undertaking that when this bill is referred to the proper committee I shall have the responsible officials of the company here so that members may determine the facts for themselves. I hope I have established that this company is a vigorous and expanding company. It has embarked on an extremely ambitious, but nevertheless much needed program of expansion to keep pace with the growth of British Columbia. In addition, this will provide employment at a time when employment is most needed. For all these reasons, I am happy to move second reading of this bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, this private bill to grant the British Columbia Telephone Company permission to increase capital from $75 million to $250 million is a very important one to the people of British Columbia. I realize that the company has made a great expansion in services since the last increase in capital was authorized by an amendment moved in this house. I listened with a great deal of interest to the history of the company's record and its intentions given by the sponsor. However, I do want to take this opportunity of bringing to the attention of the house a situation that I feel requires correcting.
We all know that the board of transport commissioners exercises, to some extent, jurisdiction over this company. The board has control of rates, but has no control over services. In order to illustrate my point, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention a small community in my constituency about seven miles south of the very productive city of Trail. In this community there are approximately 30 potential telephone users. The road between Trail and this small community known as Casino-although there are no casinos there-is along the bank of the Columbia river and provides very easy country for road construction and the building of public utilities. These people have been served by power by the West Kootenay Power and Light Company, but for many years they have repeatedly made application for service by the British Columbia Telephone Company and those applications have been turned down.
The people of this community then took up the matter with the public utilities commission of British Columbia and found out, because this company came under the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners, the public utilities commission had no authority to issue any orders with respect to services to be provided or rates.
As the board of transport commissioners had no authority to order this company to

extend their services in any direction or to provide any services, I am sure it is obvious to everyone that there is a gap in the necessary controls that either the federal or the provincial government should have over a public utility which has a monopoly in the area concerned. In my opinion there should be some amendment to the powers of the board of transport commissioners in this case, in view of the fact that the company is incorporated under federal legislation, in order to provide them with the power to issue instructions with respect to services.
I admit that the company have made great improvements in the interior of British Columbia; they have improved the services; they have installed automatic telephones in many communities and have extended the services. But, in my opinion, when a small community such as that within seven miles of the city of Trail requires telephone service, and has required it for years, it should be granted to them, according to the controls that should be exercised by the board of transport commissioners. I cannot see why these companies should have the opportunity to skim the cream off the business, as it were, and to deny services to communities such as this one.
In this case the expense involved is a very small amount indeed. I mention this matter at this time because I promised the residents of the community of Casino to bring this matter to the attention of the house and to suggest that the house give it some consideration. I think I will get some support from other members from British Columbia. There must be other instances of similar denial of service by this company.
I am glad that the bill will be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I trust that we will have an opportunity to examine the officials of the company and to ask questions and that, before this bill returns to this house, I shall have some assurance that the community of Casino will be provided with telephone service by the British Columbia Telephone Company.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Jung) for the lucid explanation he gave us in introducing this bill. I was much interested in the observations he had to make because the British Columbia Telephone Company as such plays an extremely important part in the economy of our province, as he explained only too well. I know that in the period of the past few years the system has undergone a considerable change, particularly in my own area where we have developed the automatic dialing system. I also realize, from

personal experience, the difficulty the company has had in its expansion program, although I understand that part of the problem resulted from lack of ability to get supplies where they wanted them rather than lack of financial capital. However, whatever the case might be, I am sure that all these factors might come to light.
The problem mentioned by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) is one that is probably peculiar to his area. I am sure that it and any others that might be in need of an answer will be brought to light when the bill is referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. After we have had the proper authorities before us to discuss the question at that time, we shall probably have something to say on the matter at a future date.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the explanation of this bill given by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Jung) and in his recital of the history of this company. I recall going into the history of this company myself 20 years ago in the provincial legislature in British Columbia when the public utilities commission was first set up. I discovered that this utility, the second largest or perhaps it is the largest one-I am subject to correction- in the province was put outside the scope of the public utilities commission because of its federal charter, and I investigated the history which was extremely interesting at the time. I am not going to go into the details of it now, but I should like to support my colleague the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) in his contention that either the board of transport commissioners should be given power to order extensions of service where necessary and economically feasible or else some steps should be taken to return this company to the control of the provincial public utilities commission.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre paid some tribute to the way in which this company has been extending its services. I am not quite sure what some of my neighbours would think if they had heard him. Seven unfortunate neighbours of mine are obliged to share a telephone with a member of parliament and can get hardly any use from the phone at all because neither they nor I are able to get a single direct line. None are available and none have been available, and the company can give me no assurance that at any time in the foreseeable future am I going to get it. Perhaps the $250 million capitalization will enable them to save my neighbours from that embarrassment.
Mention was made by the hon. member for Kootenay West of the board of transport
Private Bills
commissioners' authority over this company. It may be of interest to the house to know that in March, 1953, the board of transport commissioners held a hearing on an application for rate increases by this company. That application was opposed by the provincial government of British Columbia and, I believe, some 60 municipal councils. In the course of presenting their case in opposition they cited certain practices of this company with regard to the purchase of equipment, and the contention was made that grossly inflated prices were paid by the British Columbia Telephone Company to affiliated companies in the United States for the equipment which was used in the services of the British Columbia Telephone Company.
They listed at that time the enormously complicated family tree of which the British Columbia Telephone Company is one small member. I am not going to attempt to trace it for you, Mr. Speaker, as it is far too complex. However, in consulting Moody's Annual I notice some rather astonishing figures with regard to some of the values of the present capitalization of this company. I am not sufficient of a financier to know exactly what type of shares are listed in Moody's Annual, but it shows some 10,000 preferential six per cent cumulative shares, on which in 1956 there was earned $480.25 a share of a par value of $100. In Moody's Annual I also found reference to the recent merger by which the British Columbia Telephone Company had now been joined to an even larger conglomeration of United States utility, finance and manufacturing companies.
After the board of transport commissioners, in March, 1953, held their hearing and cut down, in some respects, the application of the company for an increase in rates, an application was made by six citizens of British Columbia to the combines investigation branch on the basis of evidence that had been adduced before the board of transport commissioners. I understand that the hearing which was started by the combines investigation branch was not completed. Consequently there is no definite documentary evidence with regard to the investigations made. However, in the report of the director of investigation and research for the Combines Investigation Act for the fiscal year ended March, 1955, there is reference to the application which was received in July, 1953, from six citizens formally applying for investigation into the operations of the local telephone company and affiliated companies. While this report, in conformity with the regulations when an inquiry is not concluded, is extremely careful and there is no mention of the name of the company, it is purely an
HOUSE Or COMMONS
Private Bills
assumption on my part, Mr. Speaker, that it must be the same company referred to.
I make that assumption because apparently the complaint was precisely on the grounds of the case presented by the government of British Columbia. At that time it was discovered that preliminary inquiry indicated that the purchasing procedures and company interrelationships described by the applicants were, as of the date of the application, or shortly prior thereto, substantially correct. That is to say, the telephone company purchased its supplies by private contracts through and from companies which were related to it by various intercompany stock holdings. The telephone company had a supply contract with a related company whereby the related company served the telephone company in the purchase of telephone equipment, the repair and rehabilitation of equipment, the assembly and installation of switchboard and central office equipment and the storage and warehousing of telephone equipment.
It also states in this preliminary report that while there was no specific evidence discovered of a combination to set prices in contravention of the Combines Investigation Act, it was nevertheless true that there was an agreement by these interrelated companies to supply equipment to their related company or child in British Columbia under noncompetitive rates; that is to say, they were going to make an agreement on their prices.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it may be that this company requires the extra capitalization that is called for, and certainly I would not wish to stand in the way of the British Columbia Telephone Company supplying a much more efficient and effective service than it has ever done in the past, supplying the communities which for 15 years have been demanding some care from this company, communities which were told at the end of the war that now that the war was over their requirements would be serviced. I would not want to stand in the way of this company doing that, but I would want to make sure that they are going to do it. I hope that when responsible officials of the company appear before the committee they will be prepared to answer some questions with regard to the interlocking relationship with United States corporations of whom the British Columbia Telephone Company is now a wholly owned subsidiary; that they will be prepared to- answer some searching questions as to the prices the telephone company pays for equipment compared with prices paid by other telephone companies to other manufacturing companies. If it does appear 
before the committee that the telephone company has been wasteful in the way of distributing its present returns, then some steps will be taken to see that in the future the people of British Columbia get the telephone service they are entitled to at the minimum cost without being obliged to pay tribute to companies which are outside the control of this parliament, the board of transport commissioners or any body set up by this parliament.


Mr. A. B. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I would like to supplement in a few words what was said by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). I think the past has certainly demonstrated that this company in the province of British Columbia has not displayed that social conscience which should be part of a public service operation. I had the experience in the 1930's -I think it was 1936-of working for a crown company, the Dominion Telegraph Company, which was engaged at that time- although I was just carrying a pick and shovel-in resetting the telephone pole lines in the interior of British Columbia through centres such as Lytton, Lillooet, Bridge River, and 100 Miles. All I can remember about it now is that it was a very hard job; it was a 10-hour job in the hot, broiling sun of the British Columbia interior but I want to tell the house what happened. These lines were being operated by the Dominion Telegraph, at the expense of the country as a whole, as a loss operation, performing a useful public function. But as the population increased along those lines and businesses came in, as it got to the point where it was a profitable operation, of course, the British Columbia Telephone Company took it over. I do not think the parliament of Canada has any ownership or equity in those lines any longer.
I can see the point made by the hon. member for Kootenay West, that when there is really a public service operated under the dictates of private profit the public service is sacrificed to the needs of private profit and I can see the necessity, when you have something which is a public utility, of seeing that if they make profits in the rich areas such as the lower mainland of British Columbia, then they have a duty to operate, if necessary at a loss, to carry that service, when it is badly needed, in the rural areas.
I welcome the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Jung) that this matter is to be referred to a standing committee of this house. I hope this point that has been brought out will be one of the things that will be dealt with by the

committee. I hope the committee will investigate as to whether or not the increased capitalization that is asked for can in some way be put on the market in such a fashion that Canadian people, and particularly British Columbia investors, can have, yes, control of that undertaking.
I agree with the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) that it is a pity that one of our essential services in the province of British Columbia should be under remote control of a giant United States company, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, which, of course, has very little interest in service in the province of British Columbia.
I should like to know whether in the past, in the stock issues that have taken place, there has been any share-splitting or any stock dividend. I should like to know what assurance we shall have that in the future, if this increased capitalization is granted, it will not be bartered away in whole or in part in the form of stock dividends. Therefore, I appreciate the introductory remarks which have been made, Mr. Speaker, and hope that when the committee has investigated this matter further we shall be in a better position to judge the merits of this bill.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few words to supplement the remarks which have already been made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. MacDonald), and the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron). I must say I feel that the citizens of British Columbia have been and still are placed in a rather embarrassing and humiliating position with respect to the question of the extension of needed telephone service in various areas and communities in the province.
I think the suggestion that was put forward that there should be some form of public jurisdiction over the extension of services is one which should receive the proper attention of this house or, as was suggested, should be handed over to a proper jurisdiction within the province of British Columbia.
I have had the experience myself on more than one occasion since I have been in this house of making representations to the telephone company on behalf of my constituents in the province of British Columbia, and while I have received a very courteous and attentive hearing to the representations I have made, I must say that when it comes to a basic public utility and a public service of this kind it is not right that one
Private Bills
should have to go with a cap in hand attitude to make representations in respect to the extension or improvement of telephone services.
I am glad that the opportunity has been afforded by the introduction of this bill by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Jung) to raise some of these matters, and I am sure that when this bill comes before the committee a great many questions will be raised, as has already been indicated, which hon. members will look forward to hearing answered to their satisfaction.
I do not want to repeat at any great length the comments which were made by the hon. member for Nanaimo, (Mr. Cameron) but certainly there are questions which, I feel, the officials of the company should be prepared to answer to the satisfaction of the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to oppose the bill, because I am sure it has merit, but to put a point of order. A motion has been made that the bill be referred to the-


An hon. Member:: We are on second reading now.


Lionel Chevrier: Then I withdraw the remarks I have made. I intend to make them when the motion on second reading is before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: May I inform the hon. member that the motion before the house now is on the second reading of this bill.


Lionel Chevrier: Will Your Honour hear me in that case? What I should like to say is that the bill cannot be referred to a committee in accordance with the rule of the house-it is rule 105-because the committees have not been established. It is the practice to refer these bills to certain standing committees, in the case of this particular bill to the committee of railways, canals and telegraph lines or, if that is not the responsible committee to which it should be referred, then to the private bills committee. But since the striking committee has not been established, as the leader of the house will surely confirm, then I am afraid this bill cannot be sent at this time to either the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines or to the private bills committee in accordance with rule 105.


Howard Charles Green: The striking committee will be set up either tomorrow or Thursday. We are just waiting for the Prime Minister to return.

Private Bills


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the leader of the house mind speaking more loudly so we can hear him in this corner of the house?


Howard Charles Green: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, we hope to be able to move to set up the striking committee either tomorrow or on Thursday. As I said a moment ago I am just waiting for the Prime Minister to return.
But I do not think the interpretation which the hon. member for Laurier placed on rule 105 is accurate because these standing committees are listed in the rules of the house, and I do not think that the fact that this committee has not acually been set up, and is not in a position to function at once, would abrogate rule 105 which makes it mandatory to refer every private bill, once it has received second reading, to one or other of the committees of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: If I may speak again, the rule is quite clear, and perhaps I might read it:
Every private bill, when read a second time, is referred to one of the standing committees as follows: bills relating to banks, insurance, trade and commerce and to trust and loan companies, to the committee on banking and commerce; bills relating to railways, canals, telegraphs, canal and railway bridges, to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines; the bills not coming under these classes, to the committee on miscellaneous private bills, and all petitions for or against the bills are considered as referred to such committee.
If this bill gets a second reading it should in that case go to the committee on miscellaneous private bills which is not in existence. I raise the point of order because I think it is my duty to do so. I do not do it to hold up the bill. I think perhaps, that if the bill were left standing, then when the committee has been established or set up it could at that time be referred to the committee mentioned in the rules.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I think the error in the argument made by the hon. member for Laurier would be disclosed if this fact is considered: suppose the striking committee is set up tomorrow. It may take some days to agree on the personnel of the different standing committees, and then it might be some days after that before the personnel are called together, a chairman appointed and the committee is really in a position to function.
I do suggest that the rule should not be construed to mean that no private bill can get second reading until all these steps have been taken. That just does not make sense. The rule merely says that on second reading every private bill must go to one or the other of the standing committees. In this case it happens to be the practice to refer telephone company bills to the standing committee on

railways, canals and telegraph lines. Other bills might go to the banking and commerce committee or to the miscellaneous private bills committee.
But I do suggest, Mr. Speaker, that were you to rule as requested by the hon. member for Laurier it would only mean throwing a monkey wrench into the machinery of the house, which is far from the real intent of this rule 105.
There is another aspect of this matter, which is that there is a limited time available for the consideration of these bills, depending on what other private bills are brought in. This bill might not come up again for consideration for weeks, and I think it would be unfair to bring about that result by a ruling in favour of the submission made by the hon. member for Laurier, certainly if the house is willing to give second reading to the bill this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank hon. members for the assistance they have given me in this matter. This is a problem which I have considered already because of the difficulty which the hon. member for Laurier saw. Actually, what we have before us is the second reading of the bill, and until the second reading has been given, no problem arises.
The hon. member for Laurier has posed the problem of what happens then, and he refers to standing order No. 105 which does automatically refer this bill to the appropriate committee when the second reading has been given. There is precedent for that in the rulings of Speakers in the past. On April 17, 1950, the Speaker, considering the point whether or not a motion was necessary after second reading had been given to a private bill to refer the bill to the appropriate committee, decided that no motion was necessary because standing order 105 automatically transferred the bill to the appropriate committee when second reading was given by the house. I follow the hon. member to that point.
Then the hon. member raised a further question, whether the fact that the committee has no members has any effect at that time. I think perhaps I should not deal with the point in advance but I have considered it and I would like to tell the house that my view now, right or wrong, is that these are standing committees and although you may say there is no committee if there are no members the rules of the house do provide for the existence of a standing committee on railways canals and telegraph lines to which this bill would automatically be referred under standing order 105, and so I do not think there is any difficulty at the present time. I feel, as

presently advised, that there will be no difficulty if second reading is given that the bill will be referred automatically but it cannot be considered by that committee until it is constituted by having members, but it is a committee in being under the orders of the house.


Thomas James Irwin: Mr. Speaker, would it be permissible to move the suspension of standing order No. 105 subsequent to second reading to permit this bill to be submitted directly to the committee of the whole house?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member would have to govern himself as he sees fit. I am not here to give him advice on matters of that kind.


Thomas James Irwin: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make the motion for the consideration of the house.


An hon. Member:: You can make the motion but the answer is no.


Thomas James Irwin: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Christian):
That by leave of the house standing order No. 105 be suspended and that Bill B from the Senate be considered in committee of the whole house after second reading.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I submit that that motion is out of order. A motion of that type cannot be made until a bill has received second reading and even then it would be out of order.


Lionel Chevrier: And until 48 hours' notice has been given.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member will appreciate that he cannot make that motion except by the unanimous consent of the house which he does not have.


Mr. A. D. McPhillips (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, when speaking on the debate on second reading my friend the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Jung) was perhaps just a little bit sketchy in dealing with this company because I think the house got the impression that this company was incorporated in 1916. Well now, a company was incorporated in 1916 by private act of the parliament of Canada, it is quite true, but it was not the British Columbia Telephone Company; rather, it was the Western Canada Telephone Company. In that statute there was provision for that company to change its name with the consent of the secretary of state for Canada to the British Columbia Telephone Company and there was also power given to that company to take
Private Bills
over the undertakings of a provincial company known as the British Columbia Telephone Company Limited.
Actually, Mr. Speaker, this company has a very long history when the length of civilization, you might say, in the Pacific province is considered because it starts with the incorporation in 1880 of a telephone company known as the Victoria and Esquimalt Telephone Company. Then there was a further telephone company established in 1884, the New Westminster and Port Moody Telephone Company which afterwards changed its name to the New Westminster and Burrard Inlet Telephone Company. There was also the Nanaimo Telephone Company established in 1892 and an incorporated company known as the Vernon and Nelson Telephone Company came into being in 1890. The latter company caused a little amusement in British Columbia because at that time the people on the coast wondered why the tea-drinking Englishmen who paid tribute to the time honoured custom of playing cricket and growing apples in Vernon wanted to talk to the hard-working, hard-drinking miners in Nelson; but anyway a company bearing that name was incorporated.
That company had extensive amendments made to its act of incorporation and by a process of absorption, after first changing its name to British Columbia Telephone Company, Limited, it drew in these various other smaller companies and at a long time prior to the passage of the Western Canada Telephone Company Act in 1916. I might say that this telephone operation, in 1916, was not a penny ante operation, it was a big one in the province of British Columbia. It had seen the ordinary development of the province. It had been through the boom we had in that province in its development prior to world war I, the development during the war years and the development in the roaring twenties, as they were called. It existed through the further development prior to the last war, during the years of the war and the development which occurred following world war II.
What puzzles me, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that in the whole period from 1880 on until now this very large operation got by with a capital of only $75 million. A long time has elapsed since then and there were several real boom periods which occurred in that period. As a matter of fact there are $13,-
500,000	of shares still in the treasury not issued.
I join with my friend the hon. member for Vancouver Centre in expressing the hope that in committee there will be responsible officials of this company present prepared

Canadian Wheat Board Act to answer questions. I hope they will be extremely well briefed. It seems strange to me that with this long and extensive operation extending over so many years during which the company operated with an overall capital of $75 million, not all of which is issued, we should now be asked to give this company power to boost its capital to $250 million.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, October 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. McCullough for the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise in support of this bill. I have always been against speculation concerning the food of the nation which is one reason I wish to support it. I do not think there should be speculation at any time concerning the food of a nation.
When the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) spoke a few days ago he referred to the fluctuation that had taken place on the market in rye and also in flax. If these commodities were under the wheat board such speculation would not be possible and fluctuation would be curbed.
It has always been the practice on the prairies for a farmer to pay his debts in October. In my 40 years in this country grain has always been cheaper in October than at any other time of the year. After it passes out of the hands of the farmer and into the grain trade the price begins to rise.
After the farmers got the wheat board we were able to get an average price for the things we had to sell, that is, in the way of grain. I think the wheat board has a lot to offer the farmer; it is not perfect by any means but it is better than anything we have ever had as far as giving the farmer a fair deal is concerned.
Now I notice that when we are talking about anything in connection with the wheat board or the grain exchange the hon. gentlemen in this house who in private life are lawyers get up. How ridiculous would it be for me to get up in a bar association meeting and tell them what I thought. I would never get near their organization to tell them what I thought about their business but they get up in this House of Commons and tell the farmers what to do. They belong to the


strongest union in the world, the lawyers' union; they can crucify a man, they can take away his bread and butter and still they have the audacity to get up and tell the farmer what he should do.
The farmer knows what he wants and if it were not for these lawyer fellows preaching about the grain exchange we would have got the things we wanted long ago. We have had two wars and what happened whenever we were at war? They took the grain away from the grain exchange and sat down and did things in a businesslike way; they could not afford to speculate then.
The troubles we have had in selling our crops have taken place since the Liverpool corn exchange was opened; while it was closed we had no trouble selling our grain, nation to nation, but now it is quite different. I do not want to hinder progress in this matter; I believe in the principle and I support the bill. I hope furthermore that the farmers in this country will also support it and let the lawyers go their own way.


Mr. H. E. Smith (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies whatsoever to the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) in rising to speak on this bill. I am a lawyer but I also represent a substantially agricultural riding and I am sure that any lawyer who practices in a small Ontario town knows the problems of agriculture. I am also sure that all members who represent rural ridings would in principle support this bill. It is a step forward in the orderly system of marketing another agricultural product. It is in the interests of all of us who are concerned with the farming industry to bring more stability to that industry.
We in Ontario are not familiar with the marketing of flax although the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir) who is an experienced farmer tells me that he is supporting this bill in principle and that by far the majority of the farmers of western Canada are interested in this matter. However, I think the timing of the bill is unfortunate. There are other farmers in Canada besides those in western Canada. They too have their problems and it is unfortunate-or perhaps I should say it is fortunate-that our friends in the corner of the house who have presented this bill do not have any members representing rural ridings in eastern Canada. Therefore they no doubt are not so sympathetic with the problems of the Ontario farmer.
I think we members from Ontario assisted in expediting the bill to provide cash advances for farm-stored grain because we realized it was a matter of vital importance to the economy of Canada, but now we would like

Blind Persons Act
some priority to be given to legislation which will help the Ontario farmers and if you will read the order paper-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where is the Minister of Agriculture?


Heber Edgar Smith: -there is a motion on the order paper to support prices for other farm products. That is a matter of vital interest to my constituents in rural Ontario.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where is the Prime Minister?


Heber Edgar Smith: Surely it would be only fair if the Minister of Agriculture and his department were allowed to present that legislation rather than be forced-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where is the government? Out electioneering?


An hon. Member:: Read your newspapers.


Heber Edgar Smith: -to have to deal with this bill, which we think is not as emergent as the legislation needed for eastern farmers. May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Monteith for the second reading of Bill No. 21, to amend the Blind Persons Act.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Before the recess I expressed the hope that we would all work in unison for the complete abolition of the means test, wherever and however it applies. In my humble opinion the means test is not only unfair, it is downright unjust. The insistence upon a person being poor to get a pension and remaining poor to keep it is a subtle means to punish our good people who have worked and saved a few dollars or who have acquired property or who wish to supplement their meagre and insufficient pensions by continuing to earn a few dollars.
I have long felt that, age-wise at least, the most unfortunately placed people are those between 65 and 70 years of age. One of the main reasons for this is the iniquitous means test as it applies to them. They are forced to retire at 65, and more often than not on
a pension that is not only inadequate but which is just enough to prevent them from obtaining a government pension. They are unable to obtain work but are obliged to maintain the heavy expenses of keeping up a home. These good people are caught between the uncharitable, near-sighted and in some cases almost inhuman policies of industry on the one hand and the foolish and unnecessarily penalizing laws of government on the other. Sir, the pendulum has swung hard against our senior citizens. Wherever the means test reaches it wreaks havoc upon those who come under its yoke. I sincerely hope that this government will not fall into the same unfortunate attitude in regard to the means test as afflicted the late and unlamented government.
This afternoon I heard the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) speak about the means test. Why did he not, and why did not his late and happily deceased government recognize this problem? Why did they refuse to correct this unfortunate situation during the long, dreary and unproductive years they were in office? In so far as the blind people are concerned, the means test constitutes a particularly unjustifiable cross to be borne by people whose cross in life is already well nigh unsupportable. What strikes me as puerile and unjust in this measure, as in the previous similar measures with which I have dealt during the past two years, is the stark fact that here again we are insisting that a blind person be poor to receive the pension and stay poor to keep it.
Why do we not say to these people, here is an increase; good luck to you. If you can go out and, in spite of your handicap, supplement this pension by earning more, then so much the better. Let us give him our best wishes instead of this means test. Of course, coming from the maritimes as I do, I have long ago learned that half a loaf is better than none. In this case, the slice is so thin I can hardly see it. It is in this light that I approve of this measure as another faint step forward. In this case, let me assure you that I sincerely feel that this act, instead of reading as it does, should read that the means test has been abolished.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There were one of two
things mentioned during this debate on second reading-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I inform the
house, as I should have done when the minister rose, that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There were one or two things to which I should like to refer at this time. The hon. member for Regina City (Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Blind Persons Act
Ellis) spoke concerning the means test. I should like to say that it is true, as I took occasion to remark last Friday, that we are not by this bill acceding to the request made by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind to the former government only a year ago for an added means test free guiding allowance for every blind person in Canada. This will not result from the measure before us, but we will achieve by this legislation, and its companion old age security measure, an actual increase since the beginning of the year of at least $15 per month in the case of the 9,000 people who will henceforth be eligible for blindness allowance and the 8,000 people on the old age security rolls. This will, I am sure, be recognized by the blind themselves, and by their friends and admirers, the people of Canada, as a major step forward in the provision of adequate social security for a most worthy and deserving section of our Canadian people.
I might point out also that the hon. member for Regina City claimed that there was not sufficient variance between the allowable income for a sighted person and a blind person. Actually the variance is quite definite. At the moment, for instance, the allowable income as we are proposing it for a sighted single person will be $960, and for the blind person it will be $1,200. In the case of a sighted married person the allowable income will be $1,620, and for blind persons the allowable income is $1,980. In my opinion there is quite a leeway there.
During the debate on second reading, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) referred to certain pages of the Hansard record containing speeches by members of our party. I should like to mention only the quotations which he did actually put on the record. Reference was made to a speech by the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) reported on page 5070 of Hansard for May 9, 1953, in which he advocated federal assumption of 100 per cent of the cost of blind allowances and the abolition of the means test for blind persons. However, may I point out that the quotation used by the hon. member for Essex East was put on the record during the debate on the Old Age Assistance Act. No mention was made by the Minister of Public Works of any abolition of the means test under the Old Age Assistance Act. The reference is purely and simply to the Blind Persons Act. I certainly believe the hon. member did indicate and intended to indicate that this applied to the Old Age Assistance Act.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Will my hon.
friend permit me to ask a question? Is he
[Mr. Monteith.)
suggesting the Minister of Public Works did not advocate the abolition of the means test for old age assistance?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, certainly not in these references; this reference is to the blind. However, the quotation was referred to at the time of the debate on the Old Age Assistance Act. While the Minister of Public Works did make that speech in 1953, at the same time the Canadian National Institute for the Blind were advocating abolition of the means test for the blind, today the institute is not advocating that. They are advocating now, and I will admit have so advocated for the last year or so, a means test free guiding allowance.
The hon. member for Essex East indicated that on page 476 of Hansard for January 21, 1957, the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) had urged the abolition of the means test. The hon. member again indicated that this had something to do with the Old Age Assistance Act. Actually, in this speech the Minister of Agriculture is urging a means test free guiding allowance, but there is not one word about the abolition of the means test from old age assistance or blindness allowances; not one word. May I only say in respect to that, Mr. Speaker, that this representation by the institute for the blind was made to the previous government. We expect to receive this representation.
We have not received it yet but as I have explained before this legislation is purely and simply to keep the whole body of social security legislation in line as of the moment, to give an increase to $55 a month to recipients of old age security, old age assistance, blind pensioners and disabled persons. That is our prime motive, and also to reduce the residence requirement and to extend the absence from Canada rule.
The hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) was referred to by the hon. member for Essex East as having advocated the abolition of the means test for old age assistance. I should like to read what the hon. member for Middlesex East said in his speech on November 25, 1952, as found at page 90 of Hansard. At that time he said:
Another thing noticeable by its absence is the removal of the means test in connection with pensions to blind persons.
He was simply referring to the speech from the throne. All he said was:
Another thing noticeable by its absence is the removal of the means test in connection with pensions to blind persons.
I cannot see how under any consideration one can take that to mean that he advocated the abolition of the means test for old age assistance.

There is another thing to which I should like to refer. Reference was made to a speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on April 11, 1957 in which he was supposed to have given some indication that he was in favour of the abolition of the means test for old age assistance. May I simply state that in his speech of April 11, 1957 there is no reference of any kind to abolition of the means test with regard to either old age assistance or blind pensions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
On clause 1-Agreements with provinces.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the minister tell us how many additional blind persons will be covered by the proposed amendment which is an amendment to an act introduced by the previous government?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have that figure some place, Mr. Chairman; it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 750 persons.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are, as I recollect, about 20,000 blind persons in Canada. Of that number there is quite a group who are included for benefit under the Old Age Security Act and others who are now covered by this amendment and the law as it exists now. Can my hon. friend tell us how many blind persons out of the
20.000	group will not in any way be affected either by this measure or by the Old Age Security Act.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Possibly some of these
figures might be explanatory, Mr. Chairman. I will just put them on the record. As of March 31,	1957, the Canadian National
Institute for the Blind registration records showed that there were 22,279 blind persons of all ages in Canada. Of these some 8,275 were on the allowance rolls in September. All of these have benefited or will benefit from the $6 monthly increase provided earlier this year and the $9 monthly increase in benefit now being provided.
It should further be noted that of the
14.000	blind persons in Canada not on blindness allowance, well over half, some 8,000, are over 70 and in receipt of old age security. They too will benefit in all cases by the additional $9 monthly benefit to be provided under the amended Old Age Security Act as well as by the extra $6 a month provided earlier.
This leaves approximately 6,000 blind persons not on old age security and not on blindness allowance at the present time. Numbers of these are on other forms of
Blind Persons Act
benefit-war disability pensions, war veterans allowances, provincial workmen's compensation and so on. Others are dependent children in their parents' home. These, of course, are in receipt of family allowances. Still others are persons of independent means, wives, daughters or relatives of persons in a position to provide them with a reasonable measure of economic security.
An additional number, perhaps 500 to 1,000 of these remaining 6,000 persons, will benefit by the increased income ceilings now proposed in this amending bill and will come partially or wholly under the benefits of this legislation for the first time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to understand my hon. friend correctly. I think the
6.000	figure he mentions is deceptive in the context in which I understood it. What my hon. friend indicated was that there were about 700 individuals-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Between 500 and 1,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Between 500 and
1.000	who may possibly benefit from this particular amendment. Am I right in that?


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can my hon. friend tell us how many blind persons in the
22.000	total he gave us will not benefit from this legislation or from any other measure to which my hon. friend has made reference?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, I cannot because there are certain numbers who at the moment are in receipt of disability pensions, war veterans allowances, provincial workmen's compensation and so on, and I do not actually have that figure. It would be something less than 5,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Am I wrong in suggesting that it is considerably less than
5.000	and closer to 2,500?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Who would not benefit?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who would not benefit from one of these measures in one way or another.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think it might even be more than 2,500.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has mentioned that the Canadian National Institute for the Blind is not now asking for the elimination of the means test but is asking for an increased guiding allowance. Am I correct in that?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister entered into a little disputation involving the correctness of some quotations that I had

Blind Persons Act
suggested. We are now, of course, dealing with the Blind Persons Act. I wish my hon. friend had taken exception to my observation when we were dealing with the Old Age Assistance Act but there will be another opportunity when I will indicate, just as I have done under this measure, that certain hon. gentlemen opposite did argue, not only for the elimination of the means test in the case of the blind but also in the case of old age assistance.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Not in the quotations you mentioned this afternoon.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. We are now
discussing the blindness allowance. My hon. friend has confirmed what I said, about the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Public Works. He referred to the mere sentence that the member for Middlesex West uttered.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Not announced in the
speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend reads that sentence again he will find that it can be construed as only one thing in the context and that he meant, as in fact he did in other speeches-


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is not what he said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -which I do not have readily before me and which can be obtained quite readily by my hon. friend from the distinguished gentleman who sits close by him, that he was one of those in this house who did advocate not once but many times in this house the elimination of the means test.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The quotation on Hansard does not illustrate that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is going to have on another occasion a flood of those speeches which will support what I am saying. I went through this and I know it did not last for only a few minutes; it lasted for several days.


Mr. Cardiff:: There is no use in looking for something that does not exist.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The whip keeps interrupting. That is the measure of his contribution in these important debates.
There were many other hon. members who advocated it sincerely. The distinguished lady member for York-Humber, for whom I have the highest regard, was one of those who advocated the elimination of the means test for the blind. I have her statement here. I am not quarrelling about that suggestion, but what I am indicating now is that when we sat over on those benches it was alleged by the opposition, now sitting on the treasury

benches, that we were remiss in not doing the very thing which the government, through the Minister of National Health and Welfare, has just now indicated it does not think it should do.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I did not indicate that. I said I would take it under consideration in further consideration of the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say to my hon. friend one of the most convenient things I learned in 12 years was for a minister to take things under consideration.


Mr. Hodgson:: Confession is good for the soul.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The difference between the government of which I was a member and my hon. friend is that when we took things under consideration they were followed quickly by action.


Jay Waldo Monteith: How do you like this bill?


Paul Joseph James Martin: But tonight we have the distinguished member for Middlesex West-


Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; the hon. member has mentioned the member for Middlesex East and the member for Middlesex West; he has mentioned both Middlesex East and Middlesex West in his remarks. I would be very glad if he would make clear which one he means. I would also like to point out that there was a change in Middlesex West in the last election.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I think the point is well taken; but the opportunity will soon be present, I take it from what the Prime Minister said, to deal with that situation.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare I am sure will not disagree with what I have just indicated. I do not say I disagree with the stand he has taken. Once again I say this legislation, which is an amendment to an act which was introduced in 1938 by the previous administration, is something which I am sure receives the strong support of all sections of the house, because, as the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska has said, this is undoubtedly a proposition that appeals to all of us notwithstanding the fact that he is not satisfied with the measure on two counts, namely, that it does not go far enough and it does not eliminate the means test.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Jay Waldo Monteith: the second reading of Bill No. 23, to amend the Disabled Persons Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amending bill is a threefold one, as I indicated in my statement on the resolution. It raises the maximum monthly allowance to $55 if the provinces agree. It increases the over-all income ceiling by $120 in the case of single persons and $240 in the case of married persons. Both of these changes are the same as those we have debated and approved earlier today in connection with old age assistance. They have already been fully explained. There is, therefore, no need for me to discuss them more fully at this time.
The third change is designed to open the way for certain patients in infirmaries, homes for the aged and institutions for the care of incurables, to benefit for the first time from disability allowances. I gave a detailed explanation of the reasons for this proposed change in my statement on the resolution and hon. members will find that statement on page 683 of Hansard for November 1 last. I do not think there is any necessity for me to repeat those arguments at this time.
Reference was made in the course of the debate on the resolution to the need for a less restrictive definition of total and permanent disability than that which was in the regulations originally. Actually, as many hon. members who were in the former parliament will know, there was a change in the definition agreed upon with the provinces and made effective from July 1 of this year. This is a much simpler definition, the text of which is as follows:
For the purpose of the act and these regulations, a person shall be deemed to be totally and permanently disabled when suffering from a major physiological, anatomical or psychological impairment verified by objective medical findings which is likely to continue indefinitely without substantial improvement and, as a result thereof, such person is severely limited in activities pertaining to normal living.
Two meetings of the federal and provincial medical reviewing officers-all of them outstanding medical men in their own communities-have been held since disability allowances began on January 1, 1955. The purpose of these meetings has been to establish so far as may be possible common and uniform interpretations of various types and degrees of disability across this country. The most recent of these meetings was held on
Disabled Persons Act
June 25 of this year, to consider the application of the new definition which I have just quoted. It is my impression, Mr. Speaker, that we still have some distance to go before we can really say that we have established a satisfactory degree of uniformity in the application of this definition in the various provinces. But I can assure the house that we shall do our utmost in future to ensure that there is a fair, a reasonable and a uniform application and interpretation of this definition of total and permanent disability in all the provinces of Canada.
Meanwhile, I believe that I can give the house some tentative indications that the new and more generous definition of disability is having its effect. The net increase in the disability allowance case load in September was 1,272, the largest increase for any month since September, 1955. Only in five months since the disability program began, namely May tc September, 1955, when the program was just getting under way, have there been greater increases than in September of this year. Furthermore, the increase of 2,461 for the last quarter, July 1 to September 30, covering the period when the new definition has been in effect, was greater than that for the two preceding quarters put together, and greater than for any three month period since the end of December, 1955.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this provides pretty convincing evidence that the new definition adopted on July 1 of this year is having a beneficial effect. I suggest we should give it a try before deciding, perhaps prematurely, that it needs a further change.
A final word on costs. I will content myself here with repeating what I said in this connection at the resolution stage of the debate. We had at the end of September a case load of 35,490. With the effects of the new definition and the further changes now proposed we can estimate that this case load will rise and that it will average perhaps
43,000	or even more through the fiscal year 1958-59. The additional cost of the $9 monthly increase for this larger case load would therefore be in the neighbourhood of $4.5 to $5 million for a full year, with costs divided equally between the two levels of government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think, Mr. Speaker, that whatever observations I have to make I can make on the bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the provisions of this bill and the new definition of permanent and total disability. I am also pleased to note that the number of persons who will be able to benefit from this act is to be increased, but even

Disabled Persons Act
after hearing the explanation given by the minister it would seem to me on the evidence I have that the definition has not yet been sufficiently broadened.
I referred earlier, speaking in another debate, to the question of whether at the coming dominion-provincial conference such welfare acts and the provisions for the application thereof might not be discussed. The minister may have one interpretation of the effect of the letter written to the premiers by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), but my understanding, in the light of the letter written by the premier of Saskatchewan on September 10, was that this may in fact be a polite way of saying no, because the premier of Saskatchewan listed quite a large number of items which he hoped would be discussed at the conference and they referred specifically to the financial arrangements for various welfare measures and their application.
I think most hon. members of this house have found that the definition of total and partial disability has been far too rigid. Instances have been brought to my attention of persons who are so disabled that they are completely unable to earn a livelihood for themselves and have become a burden to their relatives, but because of the very rigid definition of permanent and total disability they have not been able to receive benefit from the act.
I want to refer to the stand which the Saskatchewan government took on this particular matter on September 10 and to point out to the minister that this was during the month in which he said the largest number of additional persons could obtain benefit from the act, and to emphasize that even in this month when more people were coming under the provisions of this act, the feeling of the Saskatchewan government was that the definition should be further broadened. The premier has said that the Saskatchewan government has always felt that the old age assistance provisions were much too rigid and that they should be relaxed so as to provide an income under this act to persons who are unemployable, and that is the type of relaxation which the Saskatchewan government has in mind.
The minister has said that the door is not closed upon a further widening of this type of definition. I hope that in the near future there will be a further relaxation of these regulations. It seems to me that it is incongruous that a province which is short of revenue and which has always had difficulty in providing the revenues needed to carry out the undertakings in which it was engaged should have to go to the federal government

and ask that regulations be relaxed in order to bring more people under the act and, consequently, to increase in this instance the financial burden resting on that province. I think that is a very definite indication that even though we have gone some distance in relaxing the regulation there is some distance yet to go.


Frank Claus Christian: Mr. Speaker, I feel this is a progressive step but I am not altogether happy about the amount being increased to only $55 a month. I would have been much happier had it been $60 a month. With regard to this particular act, I would say that, strictly speaking, it is not a disabled persons act. In order to qualify under this act a person has to be 18 years of age and have resided in Canada for a period of 10 years and, moreover, I understand that such a person must be totally and permanently disabled. I say, therefore, that this act is limited in its application because it excludes a large number of people.
Sitting here and hearing about this amended definition which was given as of July 1, 1957, I wondered why there were not some other definitions in this particular act; for example, definitions covering partial permanent disability and also temporary total disability. I note that it is intended that there should be a proper interpretation of total and permanent disability, but the application of this act at the present time is limited to a certain type of individual who is totally and permanently disabled. It would seem that it may probably be expected that some time in the future this measure will be broadened so that it will provide greater coverage and include all those persons who suffer partial permanent disability and also temporary total disability. I trust that these matters will be considered by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
On clause 1-Agreements with provinces.
Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Chairman, the other night when we were on the resolution stage dealing with this particular measure I took occasion to mention the fact that there were many hon. members in this house who from time to time had recommended to governments of the day the adoption of a measure of this character but tonight I think I would like to repeat what I said in that particular in so far as it concerns the man who more than any other was responsible for the idea which led to the enactment of the Disabled Persons Act. The suggestion was made to me as minister of

national health and welfare shortly after the election of 1953, an election in which this particular matter was not the subject of public comment from any quarter. To the right hon. gentleman who now leads the opposition in this house must go credit for the suggestion and the possible formulation of this measure and because of his distinguished public service in many outstanding ways, as one who was minister of national health and welfare, I would like to pay him this very inadequate but very deserving tribute tonight.
The minister referred to the definition of disability which has been liberalized. He said that the new definition made under the regulations became effective, if I understood him correctly, on the 1st of July last. Am I correct in that?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the minister did not wish to convey the impression that the refinements or modifications in the definition of disability in the regulations were made by the administration of which he is so distinguished a member.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, I had no idea of doing that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. I mentioned this because, as my hon. friend knows, consideration was given to that long before there was a change of government. As I said the other evening, the original definition was restrictive. I had expressed the view that it was not fully satisfactory. It had been arrived at as a result of careful consideration and consultation with medical authorities and the provincial governments and followed an extremely close scrutiny of the practice in this particular in the United States and more particularly in those states where they had disabled persons' legislation.
I believe that the definition that has now been accepted by most of the provinces- although I am not clear on that subject and I will ask my hon. friend to be more precise- is one that I am sure is more in keeping with the spirit of this particular legislation than the older definition.
The figure of 43,000 which my hon. friend has quoted tonight as the estimated case load for the ensuing fiscal year is a pretty good indication of the effectiveness of the new definition but what disturbed me a little bit in what the minister said was that he hopes to be able to establish a wide measure of uniformity of interpretation among the provinces. Perhaps he might give us some indication as to exactly what he means. How many provinces have accepted the definition? Have all accepted the definition or are
Disabled Persons Act
one or two reluctant to do so? Does he mean that in the case of those provinces that have accepted the definition there is not yet a standard acceptance of interpretation that leads to the same result?
I think the house should understand, however, that some measure of tolerance must be provided to the minister in the making of his reply because quite obviously as much depends on medical advice in determining whether or not a person is permanently and totally disabled it is not possible to have a mathematical or exact interpretation in each case and in every province. All that we could hope for is the use of the widest discretion having in mind the general direction of the definition on the part of the medical profession in the various provinces.
I would also like to know how many provinces are now in on the scheme, how many have indicated that they are prepared to accept this amendment. Perhaps the provinces have not yet had an opportunity of replying although I understood the minister sent this bill on to the provinces as he did in the case of the other measures. As a result of these changes is it the intention to call the provinces together once again particularly for the purpose of considering another clause of the bill which we can discuss when we come to it, that clause dealing with institutional care?
My hon. friend has said that the cost of the amendment is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $4.5 million and as the cost will be shared equally this means that the federal government will have a permanent charge of at least an additional $2 million.
There is one other point which I think should be mentioned under this clause. It was the practice of the previous administration to provide for an examination of each application by both the federal and provincial governments and some exception was taken, particularly by the province of Ontario, to the role played in these examinations by the federal medical representative. I always felt that the attitude taken by the province of Ontario was regrettable. I was sure it was not in the interests of the act and this seemed to be confirmed by the acceptance of this practice by all the other provinces. I do not know what the situation is now but perhaps the minister would be good enough, when he replies to these questions, to indicate what the situation in that particular happens to be at the moment.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, all the
provinces have accepted this new definition. First of all, sir, may I say that it is far from my intention to leave any impression

Disabled Persons Act that the present government is responsible for the implementation of that definition. While it only became effective on July 1 it certainly was decided upon considerably before then. As my hon. friend will probably remember, we passed the resolution stage of this particular bill only yesterday and as a consequence copies of the bill were mailed out as late as yesterday.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sorry; you are quite right.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Of course we have received no indication whatever as yet.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are quite right.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I understand there have been some differences of opinion as to the medical review board which considers these applications. The board is composed of a doctor representing this department, a second doctor representing the provincial authority and in disputed cases a third doctor decided upon between them. I do not think my hon. friend asked any more direct questions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said that I did not quite understand what my hon. friend meant when he said he was going to endeavour to obtain the widest measure of uniformity of interpretation with regard to the definition of disability.


Jay Waldo Monteith: With respect to the medical review board, the last time the board met was on the 25th June this year. Now I presume that is the second meeting they have had since the implementation of this act in 1955. Such a meeting would I believe iron out a lot of the different thinking across Canada and possibly another meeting could be held some time in the comparatively near future, but certainly it would in my estimation be desirable to come to an overall interpretation of this definition so that a case would be treated in Alberta just as it would in Quebec, and the same in Ontario as in Prince Edward Island.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would like to ask the minister if there have been any conferences with any officials or ministers of the Saskatchewan government in reference to the application of this act or the regulations under the act? On the other hand are there any conferences now scheduled for the near future?


Jay Waldo Monteith: We have not had any representations with regard to this matter from the government of Saskatchewan but it could very well be that a discussion of some kind could be held, even informally, at the time of dominion-provincial conference.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am surprised at the minister's answer, Mr. Chairman. Is the minister not aware that the premier of Saskatchewan in the letter addressed to the Prime Minister to which I referred some time ago discussed the application of this act and the need for broadening the definition of disability? Is the minister also not aware that in that very letter the premier of Saskatchewan asked for such a conference or meeting with the minister to whom I am now speaking and who is dealing with this legislation?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. gentleman had already referred to that letter and I felt he had his mind on some other correspondence.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well then, may I ask what was the reply of the minister to this request or what was the reply of the government to the letter addressed to the Prime Minister by the premier of Saskatchewan asking for a conference with the Minister of National Health and Welfare or other representatives of the federal government in order to deal with the very question we are now discussing, namely the application of the regulation defining disability under this act.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Not having either the letter or the reply before me at the moment I am not in a position to give an exact answer but I would certainly be very glad to find out what it was and let the hon. gentleman know.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well I think that is a rather strange answer from the minister. I have in my hand a reference to such a communication and I feel I can state that such a letter went to the Prime Minister and such a request was made.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am not saying it was not.


Hazen Robert Argue: It would seem to me that when such a request has been made on such an important provision of such an important act suggesting there should be a conference with the provincial officers or the members of the provincial government the minister in question should know what his own reply was to that request. I do not expect him to carry around every request that is made to his department or every answer to every letter received, but it would seem to me that a request from a premier of a province addressed to the Prime Minister relating to the administration of an important act such as this and to such a controversial regulation should have been brought to the attention of the minister and, if it had been, I am quite certain the minister would now recollect whether he agreed such a conference would

take place or whether he decided there was no need for such a conference.


Jay Waldo Monteith: All I can answer in reply to the hon. member's suggestion is that I can say I would be very happy indeed to meet with the minister of health or the minister concerned in the province of Saskatchewan to discuss the whole thing.


Hazen Robert Argue: I want to welcome that statement by the minister. I may be wrong in my assumption but I assume that this is the first indication by any member of the government that such a conference could be held and I am sure the premier of Saskatchewan and the minister of social welfare will be very pleased to have such a conference with the minister or the officials of his department in regard to this regulation.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think it is only fair to say that while I may not have suggested a conference on this particular subject I would be very happy to meet at any time with any minister or any premier on any matter pertaining to any part of my department.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think that is an excellent
answer but since a specific request was made for a specific meeting the only question in my mind is why a reply in the affirmative was not given some months ago.


Mr. Zaplitny:: Before we carry this clause which amends section 3 of the act I would like to draw attention particularly to subsection 2, paragraphs (e) and (f) because the effect of the change proposed in this amendment may be rather obscured unless the minister is in a position to place before the committee what the actual result will be. What is being done in this amendment is to take from paragraph (e), as it was in the old act, three categories of persons who are disqualified under the act from receiving the allowance and placing them in paragraph (f) where there is a permissible clause which states "except as prescribed under the regulation".
Now the categories being moved from one paragraph to the other are those patients in a home for the aged, an infirmary or institution for the care of the incurables. Under the section as it stood those persons were not eligible for the disabled persons allowance. However, by moving them into paragraph (f) they may become eligible provided they are made so eligible by the regulations. That is my understanding of the change.
I would like the minister to give us if he can this evening the pertinent part of the regulations which can create an exception under paragraph (f); in other words by what ruling in the regulations can persons who are
War Veterans' Allowance Act in an infirmary, a home for the aged, an institution for the care of incurables or private, charitable or public institutions be made eligible when they are otherwise ineligible.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Section 22 - 2 of the regulations as amended earlier this year reads as follows:
A recipient who is a patient or resident in a nursing home or a private, charitable or public institution may be paid the allowance if he is paying or there is being paid on his behalf by a member or members of his family or by any other relative or relatives or by any other private individual or individuals the whole or the greater part of the cost of his accommodation therein.
If I may mention it at this time, Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Dauphin pointed out, section 2 (f) included the institution in which an exception might be made. Section 2 (e) actually was the prohibitive section and under the interpretation of the old designation in the act there was great difficulty, for instance, in exactly determining the difference between an infirmary and a nursing home. It was felt that it was not too difficult to interpret the exact meaning of tuberculosis sanatorium and mental institution. As a consequence, all the other types of institutions were moved down to section 2 (f), which permitted the possibility of paying these allowances.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the War Veterans' Allowance Act, 1952, to increase the monthly rates of certain allowances and permissible income; to extend the provisions of the act to additional classes of veterans, widows and orphans; and to increase the salaries of the members of the war veterans allowance board.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister make a
statement?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, in moving this resolution it again becomes very evident that veterans' legislation is never completed. Changes are always becoming necessary as times, situations and conditions change. I recall very well in 1946-47, as I am sure

War Veterans' Allowance Act many other members who were here at that time will remember, that when we passed what was known as the veterans' charter we thought we had pretty well completed veterans' legislation. Amendments have been made almost every year to the different acts that were considered and passed at that time. I feel it is only right and proper, at a time when the house is considering social legislation, that the War Veterans' Allowance Act should be given consideration.
This resolution forecasts legislation which is intended to, and which will help a most deserving group of our citizens. On different occasions I have said, and I repeat now, that I consider the War Veterans' Allowance Act one of the finest pieces of legislation ever passed by a Canadian parliament. I realize, Mr. Chairman, that at this stage it would not be proper for me to give full details of the proposed legislation. However, I am sure hon. members will wish me to indicate the main provisions in general terms.
The resolution now before the committee is consequent upon the announcement made in the speech from the throne that the War Veterans' Allowance Act, 1952, would be amended during the course of the present session. Hon. members will recall that this act was completely revised in 1952, and was amended in 1955. Furthermore, by means of a vote in the supplementary estimates for the current fiscal year, approved by the Appropriation Act No. 4, 1957, certain increases were made in the married rate of allowance and in the married and single rates of permissible income. Had the present government been satisfied with these increases, it would have been desirable anyway to have opened the War Veterans' Allowance Act at this session in order to incorporate the amendment in the act itself. However, as hon. members will see when the bill is in their hands, the government desires to go somewhat farther toward ameliorating the lot of those war veterans and widows who were trying to make ends meet on a small income.
The bill also reduces the period of qualifying residence in Canada of former members of the forces other than Canadian who were not domiciled in Canada prior to enlisting. It extends the eligibility under certain conditions to widows who are at present ineligible for the sole reason the husband died before completing his qualifying residence. Another amendment has to do with exempt income in respect of the recipient's home. The exempt value of such premises is raised.
Provision is made to remove from the act a clause which does not allow the award of supplementary allowances to an orphan in receipt of a pension under the Pensions Act.

The bill proposes to extend the period of absence from Canada which is permitted in any calendar year without loss of allowance. The bill also would extend eligibility for an allowance to a veteran of the Canadian forces who, during word war I, did not reach France but served in the United Kingdom for a specific minimum period.
Finally, the bill proposes an increase in the salary of the chairman and other members of the war veterans allowance board.
These salaries are set out in the statute itself and are felt by the government to be overdue for revision. I have tried, Mr. Chairman, to give hon. members a concise sketch of the amendments that the government has included in the bill to amend the War Veterans' Allowance Act, 1952. I shall, of course, be prepared to go into greater detail on the motion for second reading of the bill itself.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Chairman, my first words in the debate on this resolution, introduced by my old friend the present Minister for Veterans Affairs, would be to congratulate him upon attaining his present position. He has spent a great deal of time working for veterans ever since he was first elected to the house in 1935. I am sure the veterans of the country were quite pleased when there was to be a new veterans affairs minister from the party opposing that the appointment should have fallen to my hon. friend. I want to congratulate him upon attaining that position and to wish him success in serving the veterans of this country as his predecessors have done over the years since we have had such a ministry.
I should like, also, to commend the minister for the statement which he gave to The Legionary on attaining office. I thought it was in keeping with the attitude taken by ministers of veterans affairs of all parties ever since we have had a department of this nature. I should like to read to the house part of the statement the minister gave to The Legionary, which appears in the issue for August, 1957. He said:
Over the past 40 years Canada has evolved a veterans' charter which is broad in its scope and comprehensive in its provisions. It is our intention to administer the charter in the spirit in which it was conceived by parliament, and to keep in step, so far as possible, with the changing conditions of Canada's veterans and their dependants.
In carrying out our responsibilities to veterans and to Canada, we in the Department of Veterans Affairs will welcome the advice and assistance of all levels of the Canadian Legion. We hope that, in striving for our common goal, the welfare of our veterans, you will continue to co-operate with us wholeheartedly in the future as you have in the past.
The minister's comments in introducing the resolution were along the same line when

he referred, as he has done, to the working out of the veterans charter and the fact there was a real departure in procedure in that the government of the day referred the whole problem to a committee of veterans from all parties who worked out various bills which were then put before the government and, receiving their approval, were then brought into the house for second reading.
That veterans charter, as the minister has said, was regarded at the time as a great achievement, and as the new government enters on its task it would seem to me that it would be fair to take a look at the situation at the present time with regard to veterans problems as they are seen by the Canadian Legion. I have here what I think is a very good and very fair editorial which appeared in the August issue of The Legionary. I believe it reviews the situation as the veterans find it at the present time and, of course, the present government, as the minister has said, will feel that it is their duty to go on, probably in a less partisan way in this department than would be the case in any other, in consultation with the various veterans bodies to try to do a good job for veterans and their dependents. But before we go forward it seems to me it is quite fitting to examine the situation as we find it today. In many ways this editorial seems to me to be a very inspiring one to all of us who are faced with carrying on the work so well carried on in the past by those who dealt with this problem. The editorial is headed, "A Grand Tradition", and reads as follows:
While certain improvements are still being sought by the Canadian Legion and the new government will be urged to implement a number of Legion recommendations during the next session of parliament, it is a well established fact that Canada's veteran legislation is just about the best in the world. In some respects it is actually more generous than that of the United States, the wealthiest nation in existence, and in all aspects it is away ahead of the United Kingdom and every other nation. Not to bear this fact in mind would be both foolish and churlish.
Support of All Parties.
The principal reason for this singularly happy state of affairs is that, ever since the first world war, veteran legislation has been as close to being a non-party matter as any legislation can be which in the final analysis is the responsibility of the party and government in power. The various parliamentary committees on veterans affairs which over the years have dealt with proposed ex-service legislation have invariably been composed of war veteran members of all four parties in the House of Commons, and while the government has always had a majority in the committee in accordance with democratic practice it has only been on rare occasions that it has considered it necessary to use its majority vote. Practically all the committee recommendations, certainly all the major ones, have been unanimous.
D.V.A. Heads Through the Years.
By the same token the various cabinet ministers who have held the veterans affairs portfolio have been exceptionally free of political or party bias
War Veterans' Allowance Act in their handling of veteran legislation both in parliamentary committees and in the house as well as in their direction of the administration of the veterans charter by departmental officials. Like their M.P. comrade-in-arms in all parties, they have really had the welfare of their fellow veterans at heart and, within the limitations imposed by cabinet responsibility and solidarity, have done their utmost for those with whom they shared the dangers and hardships of war. Being in the pilot's seat, as it were, they have had a major share in guiding Canada's veteran legislation to its present position.
Canada's ex-servicemen and women will remember Sir James Lougheed, Dr. "Bob" Manion, Dr. H. Beland, Dr. J. H. King, Dr. Murray MacLaren, Donald Sutherland, C.G., "Chubby" Power, Ian Mackenzie, Milton Gregg, V.C. and "Bob" Lapointe primarily because they were their ministers of veterans affairs or of pensions and national health or of soldiers' civil reestablishment, to use the old titles by which some of the earlier ministers were known, not because they were members of this or that Conservative or Liberal government.
Defeated Ministers.
Only three of this distinguished company are still living-"Chubby" Power, who became Canada's dynamic air minister in the second world war and is now a member of the Senate; and Milton Gregg and Bob Lapointe who with seven of their cabinet colleagues went down to defeat in the recent general election. In so far as exservice legislation is concerned, these two will be missed in the new House of Commons. Under their respective regimes substantial benefits were granted disabled ex-servicemen and dependents, and both showed in their administration of D.V.A. and in their numerous dealings with the Canadian Legion that the wellbeing of their old comrades were uppermost in their hearts. Now that the turn of the political tide has removed them from participation in veterans affairs at the legislative level, it is only right and fair to say that they deserve the grateful thanks of Canada's exservicemen and women, and the best wishes for their future endeavours.
It is a grand thing that the tradition of veteran legislation on a non-party basis has grown up in this country. May it be jealously guarded and safely maintained by whatever party in in power!
As we have ended 22 years of Liberal administration in which this attitude was taken by the Liberal administration of the day towards working out and dealing with veterans problems whereby the co-operation and suggestions of members of all the other parties and of the people representing the various veterans organizations were sought and heeded to such an extent, I felt it would only be fair for me, inasmuch as I have watched this going on ever since 1935 and have been a member of committees for most of that period and worked with the present Minister of Veterans Affairs, to call this to mind and express my confidence, as he is so much in agreement with the course followed over the years when he took part in this work, that what is described in this fine editorial as a grand tradition will be carried on while he is the minister.
Nothing was said in the editorial about previous administrations, as a whole, but I felt that at this stage I should say a word or

War Veterans' Allowance Act two about such past administrations. Having had as much to do with veterans affairs as I did, in co-operation with the late Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie and other veteran members of the House of Commons in working out the veterans' charter, I felt I should say a word about the attitude of the government of the day and the ministers who had a great deal to do with the working out of the charter and the work that has been done since.
I think those who worked on that charter will agree with me that the attitude of the then prime minister, Mr. King, and the then minister of finance, Mr. Ilsley, was one of very great sympathy towards working out the best charter for ex-servicemen that any country in the world could have.
At this stage I should like to pay tribute to the administration as a whole at that time and particularly to the minister of finance and the prime minister at that time for the way in which they were ready to accept advice from the veterans organizations and from the members of all parties in working out that charter. But, as the minister said, since that time there has been a period of 12 or 13 years in which great changes have come about in the country, and it was necessary to make great changes in the charter if it was to carry out the ideals and hopes of those who drew it. And so, carrying out in that grand tradition, members of all parties have been permitted, under the policy of the administration, led for over the past 10 years by the present Leader of the Opposition and with the co-operation of his administration, to carry on in that way and, as the Legion has said, accepting almost invariably unanimous recommendations of the committees on veterans affairs.
I was very interested in an editorial which appeared in the Torch, the voice of the Canadian corps. I will not take time to read all of it, but it has reference to this matter and it does pay a tribute to the present Leader of the Opposition who carried on this policy, it seems to me, in a way fully worthy of the great work that had been done before he took charge of the administration.
I do not think anyone would accuse the Canadian Corps Association of being biased in favour of our party. I was quite interested to see what they actually said and I really appreciate the generous and well deserved tribute that they paid. The editorial reads in part:
The Canadian Corps Association welcomes, sincerely, the new government elected in June of this year to guide the destiny of this great country of Canada. The new regime has taken over from the old which held power for many,

War Veterans' Allowance Act
I read that because I know it is sometimes suggested that the former administration decided on what should be done without listening enough to hon. members of the house or to representations in the country, and all that sort of thing. But actually, on the testimony in this regard of the present Minister of Agriculture, the government of that day invariably referred these matters to the veterans affairs committee and, as he pointed out in the speech I have referred to, the original idea that the government had in mind in 1947 was to raise pensions by 10 per cent, yet as a result of representations made by veterans organizations and the work of the veterans affairs committee, and consideration of the whole problem, the government finally agreed to raise the pension by 25 per cent.
After all, as everybody knows, the government at that time had a good majority in the house, yet here it was showing its attitude toward dealing with veterans affairs by not in any way taking advantage of its majority or insisting on having its own way. It listened to representations from the veterans affairs committee to the extent that it finally increased the pensions, not by 10 per cent as originally suggested but by 25 per cent.
Now I hope that this attitude taken by the former Liberal administration in not adhering in any stubborn way to any idea that it had in the face of representations made on behalf of veterans organizations and by people in parliament and in the country generally, will be borne in mind by the present occupants of the treasury benches for whatever time they remain where they are, and I hope it will also be borne in mind by the present minister with regard to the legislation which he is now bringing forward.
I am not in a position to speak at length about the proposed legislation because, as I have said, the minister has not given us much idea as to how far it is intended to go, but it seems to me that with the present fall in the value of money and the rise in the cost of living that this is, particularly, a time when the administration should be ready to call in the members of the other parties and deal with this matter in a committee where it will be possible to call in the representatives of the veterans organizations to discuss the government's recommendations and their adequacy in present circumstances. They have taken the attitude in the past that this is the right way to deal with this question. It seems to me it would be a very astonishing thing if they did not follow that course themselves.


The Chairman:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I want to take this first opportunity to congratulate the minister on his appointment as Minister of Veterans Affairs. I must say that this is no mere formality on my part. I have had the opportunity and the pleasure of being a colleague of the minister on the committee of veterans affairs during the past 12 years whenever that committee was sitting, and one does not spend 12 years on a committee with a member in opposition without getting to know something about him and to appreciate him. I recognize the fact that the minister has good intentions and that he has always worked in the best interests of the veterans he has represented. I do hope that he brooks no interference from anyone when he is trying to give effect to the ideas which he has expressed during the last 12 years.
We in this group welcome this resolution and the proposals contained in it as outlined in the minister's opening remarks. I did not hear him any too clearly and I am not quite sure of some of the things he mentioned but in any event we in this group welcome the amendments as another step forward in improving the War Veterans' Allowance Act.
Although I listened very attentively while the minister spoke I thought there were some things omitted that the Canadian Legion and the National Council of Veterans have been advocating in recent years and I must deal with what the minister termed on July 16, 1956 as "some unfinished business". I can well remember his speech in this house on that occasion. Before proceeding further I must assure the minister that we in this group desire to co-operate. We will quote him and we will quote his colleagues but all we are doing is trying to co-operate in the effort he is putting forward to give effect to the ideas he has expressed during the last 12 years.
There is one serious proposal which has been made by the Canadian Legion this session which to date has not received a favourable response from the government and, of course, I refer to the suggestion that there should be a standing committee on veterans affairs. I am not suggesting we should expect everything to happen overnight and I realize that this session is carried on under somewhat unusual circumstances; possibly there is an atmosphere of the temporary surrounding the cabinet, but I do think, like the hon. member who preceded me, that even if a standing committee is not appointed this session this legislation should be referred to a special committee on veterans affairs, in

War Veterans' Allowance Act
compliance with the minister's proposals and wishes in years past, so the members of that committee will have the opportunity of hearing representations from veterans organizations.
I want to deal with a few matters of unfinished business so far as the veterans organizations are concerned. I understand that the Canadian Legion proposes that the ceilings on total permissible incomes under the War Veterans' Allowance Act be increased to $1,200 per year for the single recipient and $2,000 per year for the married recipient. If I understood him correctly I did not hear any mention of that in the minister's opening remarks.
The Legion is also anxious that the Canadian veterans of world war I whose overseas service was restricted to the United Kingdom be eligible for war veterans allowance provided that such service be at least one year in duration. If I heard the minister correctly I think something is being done to comply with that request of the Canadian Legion and the veterans organizations and, if so, I must say we in this group are very glad because these proposals have been brought before the veterans affairs committee and this house for a good number of years.
A third proposal of the Canadian Legion is that the widows of allied ex-servicemen be granted war veterans allowance in cases where the husband died before completing 20 years residence in Canada, provided:
(a)	that the effective date of her eligibility be 20 years after the husband's arrival to take up permanent residence in Canada;
(b)	that the widow herself has completed 20 years' residence in Canada, and (c) that the husband and wife were both otherwise eligible. Again if I heard the minister correctly I understand there is some move being made in that direction to implement this proposal and we are very pleased indeed.
The fourth proposal of the Canadian Legion is that section 8 of the War Veterans' Allowance Act be repealed. Section 8 of this act reads:
No allowance shall be paid in respect of any orphan who is in receipt of a pension under the Pension Act.
I understand that this section is unfair to the children of pensioners and in this case, too, I think I heard the minister suggest some amendment and we are pleased to hear that.
In addition to those proposals I want to suggest that there should be provision for the payment of the allowance outside Canada to veterans who have to leave this country for reasons of health. I know I raised this matter in the house on a number of occasions and I think other hon. members who were then in opposition supported it.
One particularly tragic case in my constituency comes to mind. A war veteran in receipt of the war veterans allowance was advised by his physician that because of an extremely unusual lung condition he would have to live in a very dry climate and suggested that he go to Mexico City. The veteran sold his little ranch, went to Mexico City and lived on a few hundred dollars for over a year. The people in my constituency sent him a little money to help him out because he was not permitted under the act to continue to receive his allowance outside Canada. This poor chap lived in Mexico City and after having spent his last dollar was found dead on the streets on December 31 last year.
My first intimation of this was a letter from a Mexican peasant who wrote and told me in very broken English what had happened. He explained that the chap had no money and his Mexican neighbours had taken up a collection amounting to 700 pesos and had provided for his funeral. This man wrote to ask if there could be some repayment of this money because they were extremely poor people. I hope the minister will introduce some amendment to prevent that sort of thing happening in the future. This was a veteran who had served overseas in the first war, lost his eldest son in the second war and suffered severe pains for years because of this lung condition which was not pensionable. He left the country and was denied the right of receiving his war veterans allowance.
In addition to that I want to make another suggestion with respect to an amendment I think should be made to the War Veterans' Allowance Act. Again it is a situation that has been brought to my attention in my own constituency and the person who suffers in this case is the widow of a man who served overseas in the first war. I am bringing it to the minister's attention particularly tonight because it would take such a small amendment to correct this situation. I urge an amendment to section 30 (11) (b) of the War Veterans' Allowance Act. This section of the act reads as follows:
A veteran who
(i)	is residing with a woman with whom he is prohibited from celebrating a marriage by reason of a previous marriage either of such woman or of himself with another person, and
(ii)	shows to the satisfaction of the district authority that he has, for seven years or more, continuously maintained and publicly represented such woman as his wife, shall be deemed to be married to that woman.
To illustrate the need for this small amendment to correct what I suppose are these very occasional injustices I want to relate this story. In October of 1914 a lady

War Veterans' Allowance Act was married in England but separated after six months and never saw her husband again. She learned, however, that he had ultimately enlisted in the British army but she never knew in what unit. In 1916 she heard that her husband had been killed but as she was not reported on his military service record as his wife and never, of course, received any separation allowance, she received no official notification of his death.
In 1918 the lady married a Canadian veteran in good faith and in the honest belief that she was a widow. They lived together from 1918 to May, 1956 a period of 38 years, until the death of this veteran. Long after her marriage this lady learned that her first husband had not been killed in France. I have known both these persons for many years and can say they are highly respected citizens of the community in which they live and are well known throughout the district. However, the war veterans allowance board cannot give the widow in question an allowance under the act because of the terms of section 30 (11) (b) because the veteran himself is dead and according to clause (ii) he must show to the satisfaction of the district authority that he has for seven years or more continuously maintained and publicly represented this woman as his wife.
I bring this to the minister's attention in the hope that he will give serious consideration to an amendment to the act to correct such a situation which I am sure would represent an extremely slight burden on the treasury because situations of this kind must be somewhat rare.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I see that my time is rapidly expiring owing to the verbosity of the colleague who preceded me. I must say that in view of the opinions expressed by the minister through the years and those of his colleagues, we certainly expect amendments in line with representations made by the Canadian Legion and the National Council of Veterans. I support the minister and his colleagues and, to inform his other colleagues in the cabinet what they stand for and what they believe in, I am just going to quote briefly from Hansard.
First of all I will quote the minister himself on July 6, 1956 at page 5751 of Hansard. He had this to say with respect to the ceiling on war veterans allowances:
I should like first to mention the ceiling on the war veterans' allowance. This is not new, Mr. Chairman; it is something which has been discussed at every veterans' meeting we have had in the past five or six years. As the minister pointed out, the ceiling on income for single veterans is $840; the ceiling on income for the married veteran is $1,440. The minister and other members, particularly the members of the veterans' committee will recall that the recommendation

which was made in 1952, I think it was, and repeated again in 1955, was that the ceiling should be $1,200 for single veterans and $2,000 for married veterans.	*
This was recommended to the committee after very serious study by Legion committees all across Canada. It was a great disappointment to veterans all across Canada when the government did not see fit at that time to raise the ceiling. It has worked a great hardship on the many individuals who are recipients of war veterans' allowances.
I do hope the minister will not continue to work a "great hardship" on the many veterans who are in receipt of war veterans allowances by failing to raise the ceiling.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, may I just interrupt the hon. member for a moment. I have the section here and as he has read it it is correct-it was a great disappointment to the veterans all across Canada that the government did not see fit at that time to raise the ceiling. I did mention that the Canadian Legion had recommended a certain ceiling but I did not say that was the ceiling I was recommending. I said "raise the ceiling".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I think if the hon. member will read it again he will see that is the meaning.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: At least the minister will admit that he suggested the government should give careful consideration to the proposals of the Legion.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is correct.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And I would say the implication of the hon. gentleman's remarks is certainly that his attitude was favourable to the matter under discussion.
Now we have my old friend the Minister of Public Works. What does he have to say? On July 11, 1956 at page 5867 this is what the minister had to say and I will not quote at length:
The reason why he will not get it is because of the low ceiling placed on the annual income he is allowed. If that ceiling were raised from $840 per year to $1,200 per year for the single veteran, and from $1,440 per year to $2,000 per year for the married veteran, as requested year in and year out by the great veterans' organizations of this country, then that situation to which I have referred would be met. This veteran would be able to get his full old-age security payment when he reaches 70, and the small pensioner who is under 70 would be able to retain his small pension and get the full war veterans' allowance.
I support the minister in his proposal. Then we come to the Minister of Agriculture. Now he is on our side-he always has been- on page 5890 of Hansard on July 12, 1956 he says:
However, I would say I have never been able to understand why the government was not

willing at least to raise the amount of the permissive income. For many years past I have urged, as have others, that the limit on the permissive income should be increased to at least the amount of the income tax exemptions.
That would be $1,500 for a single man and $2,000 for a married man.
Now to conclude my quotations, which I am keeping very brief indeed, I want to quote the Prime Minister because he was really grandiloquent on this occasion. On July 12, 1956, I quote the present Prime Minister; at page 5897 of Hansard:
I should now like to say a word or two with reference to a matter that has been discussed on previous occasions, namely, war veterans allowances. As the situation is at the present time, the ceiling on income for the single veterans is $840 and for married veterans $1,440. I find it hard to understand why the amount should not be increased to the level of that amount which, under the Income Tax Act, becomes exempt from income taxation. This question has been asked the minister before: where is the sense of fairness in this situation? Everyone is entitled to the old age pension, whether it is the prime minister who receives it or somebody else. Every citizen in our country is entitled to it at 70 years of age. Why should those in receipt of war veterans allowance find the amount of their old age pensions in effect reduced on the achievement of the age of 70 years? That is something that one hears universally complained about. It is something that is unjust for, by reason of the present ceilings, it places those who served and their dependents in a second-class position with respect to others who did not serve. It brings about a state of affairs that is unfair and unjust and it constitutes a discrimination that cannot be justified. I ask the minister once more- as he has been asked on previous occasions-this question: Why should such a state of affairs be permitted to continue?
Then he goes on to say quite definitely:
Why has not the War Veterans' Allowance Act been amended so as to provide for payment of war veterans allowance to those who served in England during the first war?
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have made these quotations purely in a spirit of co-operation-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -in an endeavour to support the minister and his colleagues in their
War Veterans' Allowance Act representations on behalf of the cabinet and in order to inform the new members of their party on the back benches of the situation and the extent of the co-operation which does exist in these matters of veterans affairs. I could give other quotations but I have had to limit myself because I wanted to conclude my remarks this evening.
I do hope however the minister will give consideration to the representations of the Canadian Legion, the National Council of Veterans, and the members on this side of the house and will not fail to remember representations made by the present government members while they were in the opposition and were members of the veterans affairs committee during the past 12 years on behalf of the colleagues and comrades in which we are all so interested.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the leader what is to be the business for tomorrow.


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall continue with this resolution which is No. 8 on today's order paper; then we shall take the resolution concerning proposed amendments to the Pension Act which is No. 9 on today's order paper; then resolution No. 12 having to do with a Canadian National Railway Company branch line and after that the throne speech debate and we may move on motions to set up a striking committee.


Lionel Chevrier: May I thank the leader for acceding to the request I made the other evening. I think it makes it much easier to follow the business of the house each day in this manner.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
96698-51*
[Stage Direction]
Questions