1962-02-09

[Stage Direction]
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): I wish to report to the house on an important part of my department's program for winter work. A total of 64 small post office buildings are being erected across Canada this winter. The program is now well under way, and the buildings are all part of the government's regular accommodation requirements. Construction was deferred wherever possible during the summer so that they might form part of the program for winter work.
The policy of erecting small, standard plan post offices during the winter months was inaugurated during 1958-59 and, with the completion of this winter's program, a total of 259 such structures will have been built under this scheme in the smaller communities of Canada. Each building provides between 600 and 800 square feet of working space and costs not more than $25,000, including land. In all cases tenders have been called locally to permit the use of local workers who may be unemployed during the winter months.
This winter's program is proceeding at a satisfactory pace, and wherever possible the work will be completed by March 31. To date tenders have been called or contracts awarded for 56 post offices. In a few of the communities listed buildings may not be erected as planned, but such instances are expected to be extremely rare.
The construction of standard plan post offices constitutes only a part of the over-all winter works program carried out by the Department of Public Works. For a number of years it has been standard practice to defer certain types of work from the summer and to let the contracts at such a time as to provide the maximum amount of winter work. In addition building contracts, both large and small, continue to carry a clause which specifies that work must not be stopped during the winter months without the express permission of the department.
A list of the communities where new post offices are planned follows, and I would ask, without reading it, to have it form part of Hansard.
Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. minister leave to add the list to today's Hansardt


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The list referred to above is
as follows:]	
Province	Location
Nova Scotia	Lawrencetown River Hebert Reserve Mines
New Brunswick	Centreville Blacks Harbour
Quebec District	Desbiens Langevin Matapedia Pont Rouge St. Jean De Dieu St. Prosper St. Raphael Abbotsford Frelighsburg St. Donat de Montcalm St. Sauveur Des Monts Valcourt Val David Weedon Parent Quyon
Ontario	Pakenham Portland Azilda Caledon East Drayton Dublin Fort Erie P. Stn. B Gogama Delaware Drumbo Plattsville Longlac
Manitoba	Eriksdale Ethelbert McCreary Plum Coulee Riverton St. Claude Wawanesa Winnipeg Beach
Saskatchewan	Blaine Lake Borden Choiceland Churchbridge Delisle Hodgeville Jansen Kyle Mossbank Norquay Radisson Southey Theodore
Alberta	Barons Breton Donalda Elk Point Hines Creek Onoway Ryley
British Columbia	Harrison Hot Springs Matsqui Fruitvale
708	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



ECUADOR AND BRITISH GUIANA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the statement reported to have been made yesterday by the Associate Minister of National Defence that the governments of Ecuador and British Guiana are now communist, the government has put into effect any measures for the control of exports to these countries?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I have not seen the alleged statement. All I can say is that the view as to these two countries, alleged as having been stated by the Associate Minister of National Defence, is one that would not induce the government to impose what is suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As a supplementary question, does the Prime Minister's reply mean that he accepts the statement of the Associate Minister of National Defence?


Mr. Fulton:: He has not seen it.


John George Diefenbaker: I think I have made it perfectly clear where I stand in that regard.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: May
I ask the Prime Minister a second supplementary question. In view of the fact that Prince Philip yesterday brought the greetings of Her Majesty to the legislature of British Guiana and wished them well in all their efforts, would the Prime Minister make inquiries to see whether the Associate Minister of National Defence has been correctly reported?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the views of the hon. gentleman as to what is taking place in that country, and I will give consideration to the latter part of his question.



CUBA-ADDITION TO AREA CONTROL LIST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yesterday in my absence the Leader of the Opposition asked whether Cuba had been added to the area control list. The answer is no. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, we do not permit the export to Cuba of items on the strategic list, nor do we permit the re-export to Cuba of items of United States origin.
[Mr. Speaker.)


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does the minister not feel that since the area control list includes all communist and communist controlled countries, Cuba should now be added to that list?


George Harris Hees: That would be a matter for the government as a whole to decide.



PRODUCER REPRESENTATION ON CARIBBEAN COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in my absence the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo asked a question dealing with the personnel making up the Canadian salt fish mission now travelling in the Caribbean area.
The answer is that invitations to join Canadian trade missions are sent to those who have specific knowledge of their industry and its problems of export marketing. Missions sent abroad by the department are intended to make detailed inquiries on marketing problems so they can report back to the department for the benefit of the industry sector concerned.
This is exactly the procedure that was followed in the selection of the members of our salt fish mission to Latin America for the purpose of making a preliminary study of that market. The hon. member states that "Newfoundland fish buyers and exporters are on the mission". The mission included one representative of the trade from each of the provinces of Nova Scotia and Quebec.


Mr. Carter:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My question yesterday was why the producers, the fishermen, were not represented on that mission. I do not think the minister answered that part of the question.


George Harris Hees: As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the mission is composed of representatives of the trade. Those who are selected are those we judge to be the best able to report back in a constructive manner to the industry for the furtherance of increased sales of those products in the area.
I shall be glad to discuss this matter with the hon. member after the orders of the day if he wishes to pursue it.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask whether he has seen the report to the Minister of Agriculture containing

charges that some members of that department are reticent in supplying information to the public except under direction from above, while others take a public be damned attitude, as contained in a survey made by Mr. Harry M. Halliwell-


John George Diefenbaker: What is the date?


Lionel Chevrier: It is in the Globe and Mail of February 9, which I send over to the Prime Minister now. I should like to know whether the Prime Minister has any comment to make in connection with this report.


John George Diefenbaker: I will have to examine the report to ascertain what was said before making any comment. The Minister of Agriculture has been laid up, as the hon. gentleman knows, for almost three weeks and is confined to bed at home. When he returns no doubt this can receive attention.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. The question was asked because the report has been made public, and I wonder whether the Prime Minister would not also look into this other matter which is contained in the report. That is, does the report in fact contain a finding that a situation such as is referred to therein is intolerable in a democratic government, and especially so in a department responsible under law for the gathering and dissemination of information in the public interest? I wonder whether the Prime Minister would also look into that aspect of the report which is said to have been made to the Minister of Agriculture.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will give consideration to that. I have not seen this report. Apparently there was some examination of the department and suggestions were made. What the hon. gentleman quoted from was the report prepared by the party who looked into the general situation regarding information. Similar inquiries, of course, have been made into various departments by the Glassco commission.



ACTIVITIES OF EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I may direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for London (Mr. Halpenny), and ask the minister whether his executive assistant, Mr. George Mitches, is the same George Mitches who holds the position of returning officer under the Canada Elections Act and whether, 26207-1-46
Inquiries of the Ministry if this is so, the minister feels this is compatible with the sense that we have with respect to the conduct of elections.


Hon. G. E. Halpenny (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I found out about this yesterday. I was under the impression that he had resigned some seven months ago, but his resignation has gone in this morning.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister noted the report in the Globe and Mail of February 9 stating:
Canada has been asked by the UN-this before April 1 and well before a general election-under what conditions she might commit herself not to accept nuclear weapons on home territory.
Is the Prime Minister in a position to give the house any comment or information that would help in regard to this report?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There have been a number of questions relating to this particular policy and I have indicated my view previously, that the questions relate to an important matter of policy which hon. members, in accordance with our practice, should not expect to be declared in answer to a question before the orders of the day. It is a matter for treatment otherwise, in accordance with our rules.



KILLALA LAKE, ONT.  RADAR INSTALLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, regarding which notice of intent was sent to him. Can the minister inform the house whether a radar installation at Killala lake in northwestern Ontario is under construction or being planned?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: The hon. member says notice of this question was given to me. If so I did not receive it. I shall have to look into the matter and give an answer at the earliest opportunity.



INQUIRY AS TO EFFECTIVENESS OF BOMARC DEFENCE SYSTEM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence

Inquiries of the Ministry based on the report of an interview given by the associate minister in Montreal yesterday, in which he is reported as having said:
The Bomarc will provide effective defence against aerial attack if a war breaks out within three years.
My question is, when will the Bomarc become an effective defence?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have not seen or read the speech given by the associate minister and I am therefore not in a position to say whether the statement alleged to have been made has been correctly reported.


Lionel Chevrier: It would not surprise you if it were?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The whole question of the Bomarc was gone into when the estimates of the department were up for consideration. I gave a full explanation at that time, and if the hon. member wishes to refresh his memory with regard to what the situation is in connection not only with the Bomarc but the other weapons systems which we have acquired and which are capable of taking nuclear warheads, I think it would be advisable for him to reread that discussion.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is the minister now informing the house that no progress has been made in connection with the Bomarc since the estimates were under discussion last year?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that instead of asking a question the hon. member is attempting to draw a conclusion, which, of course, he is entitled to do, but not in the form of a supplementary question.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question occasioned by Premier Robarts' statement yesterday that the logging and pulp and paper industries could expect an early announcement regarding the removal of the logging tax. Has the minister taken under consideration in 1962 any representations from the Ontario government to end the dual nature of the taxation on the logging industry in Ontario?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I have not seen the statement attributed by the hon. member to Premier Robarts. He was evidently referring to the provincial logging tax. As far as the federal government is concerned, the reference is to the federal income tax imposed on companies engaged in this area of endeavour.

This subject was discussed at the last dominion-provincial conference and there has been continuing discussion of it between the federal government and governments at the provincial level, particularly of those provinces which have a more direct concern. I arranged several weeks ago for a conference to be held at the official level to examine the subject further, a conference to which the provinces were invited and to which the industry was also invited to send representatives. A date was tentatively proposed, but the officials of the government of British Columbia indicated that they were not in a position to attend at that time. We have asked them to suggest some later date in order that the proposed conference may proceed.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Can the minister indicate
whether there is going to be a bilateral announcement, a statement not only by Mr. Robarts but by himself?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not understand what the hon. member means by "announcement".


Douglas Mason Fisher: My question is this. Premier Robarts has indicated an early announcement. Is the minister prepared to indicate whether he is going to be sharing that announcement with Premier Robarts?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no particular announcement, Mr. Speaker. It is within the power of the premier of the province to make a comment whenever he thinks it proper concerning the provincial logging tax. That is, after all, a provincial tax. As to the federal tax, I do not contemplate any announcement.
I hope this conference can be held soon. I hope the province of British Columbia will be able to be represented at it on the official level and that we can have fruitful discussions, because it is a matter that requires a joint approach on the part of both the federal and provincial levels of government. The whole question relates to the tax position of this industry in respect of both federal and provincial taxation.



REPORTED U.S. COMMENT ON EXCHANGE RATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister any comment to make concerning the warning voiced by the United States under secretary of the treasury, reported in today's Gazette under the headline "Dollar Continues Lower Despite Fund Support", against manipulation of the exchange rate-to quote the article-"through which one country or another can seek temporary refuge

Inquiries of the Ministry from balance of payments disciplines by juggling its exchange rate-beggaring its neighbors-"?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister may wish to comment, but may I point out that what the hon. member has done is to read a report of something that took place outside the country and ask the minister whether he wishes to comment on it. I have no doubt that a question could be asked about a matter of that kind; therefore I do not propose to declare the question out of order. I am, however, attempting to suggest to hon. members that when a public issue arises which they consider to be a matter of urgency and of the administrative responsibilities of a minister it ought to be framed as a specific question for information and not merely as an invitation to comment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, on the point you raised, yesterday a question was asked by an hon. member on the government side of the house inviting the Prime Minister to comment on a statement made by a United States senator. That was considered, I gather, quite in order and comment was made at some length. Certainly that is parallel to the question just asked.


Mr. Speaker:: I may be in error about this, but my point is that it seems to me if we were to allow questions on statements made around the world on various matters in the form "would the minister care to comment", it would open the door to unlimited inquiry; but where the subject matter is something that falls within the administrative responsibilities of the minister-and the exchange rate does, of course, in the present instance-and if it is an urgent matter it may be brought before the house as the basis of a question. My intervention is in the interest of seeing that questions are asked as questions seeking specific information and not general invitations to comment on what other people say.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if I may treat the question as one relating to the subject matter of the exchange rate rather than as being asked to comment on something that has been attributed to someone else in the press, J would be glad to comment on the subject matter of the exchange rate and the steps the government has been taking in that regard.
It is not fair to call the Canadian rate a manipulated rate. That, I think, is an opprobrious term, and it is quite unfair. The policy the government has followed in regard to the exchange rate and the external 26207-1-46J
value of the Canadian dollar is well known, and we have made known month by month the extent of the net transactions of the month through the foreign exchange fund in purchases and sales.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that since June 20, 1961, the date of the last budget when the present policy was announced, the exchange value of the Canadian dollar has moved within a narrow range, and the operations of our exchange fund on each side of the market have approximately balanced out. At the close of business on January 31- these figures will be announced in the regular course today-our official holdings of gold and United States dollars were $1,922 million. At the end of May, 1961, the last publication date before the June budget, our holdings were $1,949 million. Thus, apart from the sum of $50 million which we lent from our reserves in August and September as part of a general move to provide support for sterling, our reserves at the end of last month were within $25 million of where they stood shortly before the budget.
While there have been periods, such as in October and January, when our exchange fund has operated extensively, it has not operated in an aggressive manner; that is to say, it has not driven the rate in one direction or another. On the contrary, it has at all times responded to and moderated market pressures.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this statement will put an end to the kind of talk we have heard about a manipulated exchange rate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Does the minister deny that the government intervenes from time to time in order to influence the rate?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member will find the answer to his question and some additional information in the answer I have just given, when he has an opportunity to consider it. I have said that where the exchange fund has operated it has not operated aggressively. It has not driven the rate in one direction or another. On the contrary, it has at all times responded to and moderated market pressures.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS NEWFOUNDLAND    REQUEST FOR REPORT ON MEETING WITH PREMIER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister meet with the premier of Newfoundland and, if so, does he have any comment to make in relation to that meeting?

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did meet with Premier Smallwood yesterday, as did the Minister of National Defence. We discussed various problems concerning Newfoundland. The meeting was most congenial, most happy, and when the outcome is announced I think it will be acceptable in every way. We discussed Pepperrell air base and various other matters that have concerned our two governments for some time. I am not in a position yet to reveal the decisions made because they require ratification on the part of both governments, but I am sure when the announcement is made it will be widely accepted and applauded as an example of that co-operation which should prevail between the federal government and the provinces.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of co-operation would the Prime Minister care to comment on the reported statement of his colleague, the Associate Minister of National Defence, to the effect that the yellow peril is one of the most terrible threats to western civilization?



REPORTED STATEMENT BY PROVINCIAL MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. I wonder whether he has received any message from the Quebec government which has the purport of a statement allegedly made yesterday by a Quebec minister, one R. Levesque, to the effect that the federal government should "get out, vanish"?


John George Diefenbaker: I think that referred to shared programs.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last the hon. member for Kootenay West inquired about the use of Pinkerton guards at Canadian shipyards. I have checked, and I find that last summer the hon. member for Coast-Capilano brought to my attention a protest that he had received from a constituent. I advised that it was my information that this was more properly a matter coming under the jurisdiction of the province. There do not appear to have been any subsequent representations to my department.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is it a fact that the most recent report of the commissioner of penitentiaries was prepared and printed by inmates of one of our federal prisons? If this is a fact will the minister accept congratulations on a laudable program, and will the program be continued?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The report this time was printed in Kingston penitentiary, and it is a program which we intend to continue and enlarge with respect at least to the printing of the Department of Justice.
(Translation):



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Johnson (Chambly-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Has the premier of Quebec replied to his recent letter containing a proposal that, in the event of Quebec accepting the abolition of tolls on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges, the maintenance of these bridges be provided on a shared-cost basis?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I received a reply to the first letter I wrote to Premier Lesage. In this reply he asked for fuller particulars regarding the federal government's proposal. I answered that letter and I am now awaiting his further reply.


An hon. Member:: He had better hurry. [Later:]
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, further to the question put previously to the Minister of Transport, could the minister tell the house whether there has been any progress in the discussions between the federal government and the city of Montreal concerning tolls on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges?


Léon Balcer: I have not yet received a reply from the mayor of Montreal.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alfred Belzile (Matapedia-Maiane):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could the minister tell the house whether legislation will soon be introduced concerning the Matane-Ste. Anne des Monts railway?


Lionel Chevrier: That is already on the order paper.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. friend has always been interested in that project and I am pleased to announce that legislation will be put on the order paper forthwith.


Mr. Pigeon:: It will not take twenty-two years.
(Text):



DISABLED PERSONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 8, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Monteith (Perth)- Mr. Martineau in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Disabled Persons Act to increase to sixty five dollars per month the maximum amount of allowance in respect of which payments may be made to the provinces under the provisions of that act, and to increase the total amount of allowable income, inclusive of allowance, by one hundred and eighty dollars a year in the case of an unmarried person and three hundred and sixty dollars a year in the case of a married person.
Mr. Peters:: I should like to say just a few words on this disability pension program, Mr. Chairman, and I wish to do so clear of the garbage that appeared to be thrown into this discussion yesterday in the form of election proposals. I faintly heard an interjection by an hon. member, and if he wishes to repeat it I shall be happy to take up the argument that was taking place yesterday. If he does not wish to do so, that suits me fine, because I should like to discuss the disability pension itself.
I agree with the hon. member for Hamilton South who yesterday pointed out that disability pensions were very important, in that the recipient received more than just a subsistence allowance. In many cases the receipt of this pension enables the disabled person to take his place in the community when he would otherwise be dependant on his family
Disabled Persons Act
or on the community. This pension does allow those over 18 years of age to qualify to take their place in the community. I suggest that this possibility might be further extended if the minister could give consideration to some of the limitations connected with this particular pension.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in order to qualify for a disability pension one must prove that he is totally and permanently disabled. This means, in ordinary language, that the person must have one foot in the grave and the other one must be very close to it without any chance of recovery. I believe this fact limits the extent to which this pension could apply, and limits the social advantages that might be derived from the pension if the restrictions were not so stringent. I believe that some people who are suffering from cancer, and who are incapable of working, should be able to qualify for this pension. It is true that in some cases there is a possibility of recovery, but this sometimes turns out to be merely a hope rather than a fact. Such people might derive some advantage from this pension.
The same situation applies to people who are suffering from arthritis and rheumatism. While it is true there may be a cure for arthritis and rheumatism, the damage done to the patient by the disease often means he is totally incapacitated after the disease has been arrested. I can only speak of the province of Ontario, but the clause in the act relating to the totally and permanently disabled means that many people who should be able to obtain this pension are denied its benefits. I think the minister should give consideration to amending this particular clause, because in my opinion it has worked a hardship in a number of cases.
Yesterday we heard a great deal about social justice and this so-called social security scheme. Another limiting factor in connection with this particular pension is the situation where a man may be totally and permanently disabled and would be able to qualify for the pension except for the fact that his wife has a job. In this case it is impossible for him to obtain this type of assistance. I cannot for the life of me see what difference it makes whether or not a man's wife has the initiative and ability to go out and work in so far as his receipt of the disability pension is concerned. Certainly, according to our legal interpretation of dependency, it has not been necessary for a wife to support a husband. There have been some cases of disagreement as to whether or not the rule should work the other way and the husband should have to support his wife. Certainly it has not worked in reverse.

Disabled Persons Act
In this connection I should like to cite a letter I received, which says in view of the fact that Mrs.-I shall not use the name- is employed, the income may be in excess of the ceiling imposed by the act for a married applicant. In this particular case the man has no job. He is bedridden as a result of arthritis, but his wife has a job in the telephone exchange. She is doing what she can to keep the household together. It is a fact that if she were to stop working tomorrow the husband could qualify for this pension, but he certainly could not keep his wife on $55 a month or even the $65 he will receive after this amendment. His wife will have to continue to work, which means that this man is dependant on his wife for his very existence, and this fact is known in the community.
I feel this situation is damaging to the morale of those people who are disabled, because if they could obtain the pension they could take their position in the community without being dependant on their wives for their daily bread. I do not believe the income earned by the family jointly, or by the wife, should be considered as income of the husband who is making application for a disability pension. His disability should be sufficient to enable him to qualify. The wife cannot stop working, because the family has to be supported. There is no additional allowance given to the wife, and I think this is a limiting factor which should be eliminated at the suggestion of the federal government.
The minister spoke about setting up a welfare council. One of the duties of this welfare council no doubt will be to consider the means by which we can reintroduce disabled persons into a useful life. I am sure everyone will agree that if we could pay the disability pension it would help a disabled person to take his place in the community without being dependant on the community. I think the people are truly desirous of having these disabled people return to work. However, it has come to my attention that the ceiling on income is so low that a disabled person cannot possibly be employed without losing his pension.
I shall give a particular example of a person who is disabled. He is not so bright mentally as some people, but I do not imagine he would be classed in the lowest bracket of mental advancement. He applied for a job in a bicycle shop where there was an opening for a man to fix tires and repair bicycles during the season when that is applicable in northern Ontario. The job could not have lasted more than six months. The man who employed him has been employing disabled people for a number of years.

He is very sympathetic toward them and has even employed disabled persons who have to use wheel chairs. In some cases the people he has employed were considered unemployable for many years.
In the particular case which I refer the disabled man asked for $12 a week, and the employer said he would not pay him $12 a week as he did not consider it sufficient. He said he would hire him on a temporary basis and pay him $25 a week, which was the minimum he considered proper on grounds of public opinion and for other reasons. I should state that the employee first established his disability pension in 1956, and he was employed in the bicycle shop from May 8, 1961 to September 20, 1961. Then, before he was laid off, an investigator came to him and said "By such and such a date you will have earned so much money that you will be over the $750 allowed; therefore we will have to get back an overpayment of $110 from you".
Now, Mr. Chairman, that may be true. The act says that a person is not allowed to make over $750 but I feel this man could have been employed for a year at less than $750, or employed for six months and allowed to earn the $750. However, the department took away his disability pension and instigated an action against him to get back the overpayment of $110. They left the man without his disability pension and without a job, and he is now on municipal relief receiving $46.35 a month. If on $55 a month he could not pay back the $110, how in thunder do they expect him to pay it back on the $46 which he receives in municipal welfare?
I do not particularly want to pursue this case, except to say that the employer also hired a person in a wheel chair who was afflicted with arthritis. The employer taught him how to keep books and established him as an accountant. This man had not worked for over 20 years, but when this employer hired him he worked in the plant for a number of years until he finally broke his neck by falling out of his wheel chair. That man told me that the mere fact he was able to get the job meant for him the difference between wanting to live and not wanting to live. It was not the money that was his sole concern, it was the fact that somebody would give him a job.
I believe this employer should be commended for his efforts in trying to rehabilitate disabled persons, but as long as we maintain a ceiling on earnings which makes it impossible for that employer to pay even a minimum wage, then he is going to be very sceptical about employing others. In

fact he has said that he will not employ disabled people any longer in any of his shops, for the sole reason that he does not want to get into the position of being accused of helping them to lose their disability pensions. In the case I mentioned, the fact that he paid the employee more than the minimum meant that the man lost his pension. I suppose his pension can be re-established, but to me it seems very unfair and I believe the provisions of the act should take into consideration the wage that would be paid under the minimum wage act.
If this employee were a woman in Ontario the minimum wage law would apply, and an employer could not pay an amount of money which would permit the employee to remain at work and still receive the minimum wage. There are certain jobs which a person's mental capacity will allow him to do, and I believe this should be a consideration of the government.
Certainly every disabled person in the country appreciates the fact that this additional $10 will be paid, but I believe that the minister, if he really believes in social justice, about which we have been hearing so much, should consider allowing an increase in the ceiling upon earnings of people in receipt of disability pension. This is very important and has been important in regard to other pensions. The minister can turn to his colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and he will find that department has done a great deal in relation to the employment of people who are receiving total disability pensions under the veterans affairs legislation. That department has felt that even though a person is considered to be unemployable he may be able to do certain types of work.
I should now like to refer to one person for whom people in northern Ontario have a great deal of respect because of the courage she shows. She is a young lady who often appears on television programs in the town of North Bay. She is badly crippled by arthritis and rheumatism. She can hardly get around, yet she has been able to conduct a program on television and has been able to impart to others some of her own cheerfulness and vivacity. Her courage is obvious to those who know of her disability, and she has been able to give a great deal of encouragement to all those who are similarly afflicted in that area.
I am not aware what her earnings are, but if they appear to be more than would be allowed by the department, consideration should be given to the problem. That is one very exceptional case, and I believe that in this and similar cases the earnings limit of $750 should be removed. As members in the
Disabled Persons Act
House of Commons well know, there are those in our ranks who are disabled, and it is my contention that disabled persons should at least be allowed the opportunity to become fully employed, even at the minimum amount of money, because of the rehabilitation effect which employment has on them. The minister may not be prepared to do it today, but I hope that in the very near future he will give consideration to removing the ceiling, and also the regulation that makes it necessary for a wife's income to be considered in giving to the head of the household a disability pension on his own behalf.
I hope the minister will give consideration to these matters, and will also review the clause that demands that a person be totally and permanently disabled. I say this because many of our citizens are in a position now to expect and demand assistance but their doctors cannot certify that there will not be a new medical discovery tomorrow that will make it possible for them to recover at least to a partial extent. The minister is giving consideration to this matter; he has mentioned that he has set up a council that will discuss these things. I hope he will take these questions into consideration when the subject is raised again for discussion.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, may I draw an anomaly to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare who has put this resolution before us. It concerns people who may be in hospitals or public institutions and who are disabled persons within the meaning of the act, yet there is a disparity between their right to this allowance as compared with old age assistance or assistance to blind people who are perhaps under similar conditions in these institutions.
The anomaly is this. While the payments may contine under the Old Age Assistance Act and to blind persons, under certain circumstances these payments are not made under the disabled persons allowances act. This was recently considered at some length at a meeting in Truro, Nova Scotia, of the municipal home superintendents and matrons of that province. I do not want to take up the time of the committee unduly, but the sections of the act which create the problem are sections 21 and 22. Section 21 says that subject to section 22 an allowance shall not be paid during the period that a recipient is a patient or a resident in a hospital, nursing home, infirmary, home for the aged, an institution for the care of incurables, or a private charitable or public institution.
Then section 22 sets out certain conditions under which the payments may be made, but it is not a blanket form of payment available to all disabled people who find themselves in

Disabled Persons Act
the institutions I have mentioned. This seems to me to be an anomaly which creates a certain bitterness, or at least dissatisfaction. A disabled person feels that his plight is at least as serious as that of a person who is blind or a person who requires old age assistance. My suggestion-while the resolution does not specifically cover this-is that this anomaly should be considered by the new national council on welfare which will be established.
There is another point I should like to make. I am sorry I did not have an opportunity to make it last night when that paragon of perpetual attendance in the House of Commons, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, was here. He is not here this morning. I was interested to note that in his lengthy discourse at no time did he mention disabled persons, although this was the subject of the debate before us. I had occasion previously to say that 90 per cent of his compassion was directed to the old Liberal party and 10 per cent to those in need. I would say that last night he reached 100 per cent compassion for his party.
Perhaps he has been communing with the premier of Newfoundland, who must also have been dissatisfied that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate seems to have transferred his affections to the premier of Quebec. No doubt this will be righted and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate told where his benefaction does come from.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to participate in this debate, but I cannot let the remarks just made by the hon. member for Halifax go on the record without a reply. The hon. member for Halifax has pointed out that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who is unavoidably absent today, devoted very little time in his speech to the disability feature of this legislation.


Robert Jardine McCleave: None at all.


Chesley William Carter: I wish to point out to the hon. member for Halifax that the example for that was set by the minister himself. The minister spent about two minutes speaking on the resolution itself and the rest of his speech, about 20 or 30 minutes, was devoted to the Liberal social, old age pension plan.


An hon. Member:: And the Prime Minister.


Chesley William Carter: A further example was set by the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon, when he did not deal with the disability pension feature at all and did not devote any part of his speech to the subject matter of the resolution but initiated a wide open debate on the whole subject.


Robert Jardine McCleave: It was the Leader of the Opposition who did that.


Chesley William Carter: If the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was not in order he had two excellent precedents, one set by the minister who introduced the resolution and the other by the Prime Minister himself.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a question about something which has always bothered me in connection with this legislation. We are initiating here a measure which will apply to disabled persons all across Canada from St. John's to Vancouver. The hon. member for Timiskaming has already pointed out that there is one problem in connection with this matter, which is that to qualify for this pension a person must be considered to be permanently disabled.
It is very difficult, in the light of advances in today's medicine, for anyone to determine when a person is permanently disabled. I think the federal government should modify this requirement in the light of scientific advances in medicine, and make it applicable to a person who has been disabled for a certain length of time. I say this because a person has to eat whether he is disabled for one year or for the rest of his life, and the purpose of this legislation is to help people who are in need; it is to take care of their need. I suggest that this measure should be adjusted to make the need the governing factor in the administration of this legislation.
The second problem that bothers me, and the second question I wish to put to the minister, is this. This legislation is administered by the provinces, and in particulai it is administered by boards set up under the auspices of the provincial health departments. This means that we have ten separate boards in Canada from St. John's to Vancouver, one for each province. How, then, do we ensure that a person in St. John's gets exactly the same treatment as a person in Vancouver? What criteria, if any, are we setting up for the guidance of these boards in order to avoid disparities in cases of this kind? I have the uncomfortable feeling that a person can qualify for benefit under this act in one province whereas, though he might be suffering from exactly the same condition, he would be disqualified in another. I think that is something we should seek to remedy, and I ask the minister when he replies to tell us what we are doing along these lines.


John Ross Matheson: Yesterday we had an example in this matter, which might have taken a very short while, of the minister and the Prime Minister both making a real effort to introduce into this debate a partisan note that

7X7
perhaps has not been heard this session. The
Prime Minister, indeed, touched on almost everything but the issue before the house. He was like a hockey player who did not care whether his stick touched the puck as long as it touched a lot of other people in the game and even outside the game.
I ask this committee to consider, before we end this debate, whether there can be some responsible reply from the minister as to how this important matter is to be financed. We on our side believe that this amount of additional payment is not adequate. At the same time we believe that an adequate scheme has got to be paid for. There has not yet in the course of this debate, to my knowledge, been any suggestion whatsoever as to how Canada, with record deficits piled up over these past four years, is going to finance this important project.
I submit there is something vulgar, immediately prior to a general election, in using some of the senior people, who have done so much to enable those of us who are younger to start out in life with fine opportunities, as pawns in a political game. Some of these people who will be receiving pensions on account of disability and old age are people who remember paying for things when those things were due.
On our side we have earnestly put forward a scheme which was the result of many months of research by experts, as we believe, and which was to some extent the aftermath of the study of the Clark commission report. But there were many interjections yesterday from the minister, when again and again he asked the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, "What would you cut out?" I do not find these interjections appearing in Hansard, but we remember them. The only possible inference was that if we were going to be responsible and balance the budget we were going to have to cut out some payments; or, alternatively, that the payments could not be made.
I put to the committee that there is an alternative, and the alternative is the theory of growth; the theory that this country can go places, the theory that in the field of social security we have not reached the end of the line by any means that we are, in fact, part of an affluent society and that our capacities in the fields of production, technology, the service industries and so on vastly exceed our consumptive capacity and that as time goes by we are therefore going to be able to provide better living for many people providing that people are not wasting their lives in unemployment and that people's services are used until a reasonable time of life. That
may well be, in the future, to the age of 55 or even younger. Maybe we shall be working a substantially shorter week.
It is only if we have a theory of growth that this will happen. It is time we started thinking in terms of a greatly enlarged productive capacity which would be possible for Canada if we have not this great waste of human resources, the wasted years in Canada. The lack of growth which we have experienced is at the root of many of our problems. I would remind this committee that the Gordon commission report of November, 1956 was a study of Canada's potential as it then appeared to a variety of people across Canada. I think it is fair to speculate that the chairman to that commission, who now appears as politically partisan, and many people who appeared before that commission had no reason to think in November, 1956, and before that, that the then Liberal administration would be defeated. Their prediction was honest, fair and reasonable; yet with respect to all their expectations for these last four years we have failed to reach a reasonable accomplishment. If we think of output in general terms, if we think of the average output per individual, gross national expenditure, personal consumption expenditure, of growth factors, capital formation, of government expenditure, of exports and imports or of consumer expenditure, what do we find? Only in the field of imports have we reached expectations of those years.
In the budget debate of some months ago I raised some questions which to me were relevant to this whole question of where we are going, particularly in connection with this matter which we are debating now. The question at that moment was how we were possibly going to finance the kind of exchange manipulation then contemplated. That is the only word which I think can be attributed to the exchange policy; this has been the expression used by Mr. W. Earle McLaughlin and a number of financial editors who have considered what took place during the last year. I put to the house the proposition that we could pay for this only in one of three ways, either by taxation or by borrowing or by printing.
I put to the committee the same question today. How are we going to pay for this additional expenditure? It is not a contributory plan as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition and by many business experts across the country and many authorities in the United States and Britain. How are we going to pay for this? We have three ways of paying for it, the same three ways; either we tax for it or alternatively we borrow or, third, we print.

Disabled Persons Act
I ask hon. members to consider, when we look at the returns we have had in this house to certain questions-for instance, the return that was given on January 29 with respect to the total currency of chartered bank deposits-whether that is not exactly what this government intends to do, to print for it. We have had no suggestion from the other side as to how they are going to pay for this scheme. I think this is a responsible, urgent and important question. Let us not fail these good people, either disabled or old. The hon. member for Stormont yesterday began to read to the committee a little scripture. May I refer him to the book of Haggai, chapter 1, verse 6:
-and he that earneth wages earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes.
I invite the minister to consider all the implications which may result from simple spiral inflation unless the government is prepared to come to grips with its responsibilities before we go to the country. The government will have to accept reality and take the position of saying, "Yes, there have to be larger payments, and this is where they are coming from".
We cannot anticipate the budget debate in this discussion. However, let me make clear that in the opinion of hon. members on this side of the house these grants are not nearly sufficient to meet the current needs of many people who are caught in the problem of increased living costs, the problems attendant upon urbanization and curtailed employment. I invite the minister's attention to the book of Luke, chapter 14, verse 28:
For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?
Within the next few months the people of Canada must decide in whom they will repose their trust for the crucial five year period ahead. It is important that the government adopt a responsible attitude at this time.
Many people experience difficulty in making application for disability pensions. The pride of some people is such that they have difficulty putting themselves in a position in which it appears to them they are asking for a handout. It is one thing for a man disabled in service to his country during war to receive assistance. He has had the honour of serving in Her Majesty's forces, of wearing the uniform of his country with dignity and pride. But it is another thing for a farmer or workman to have to request assistance. In my constituency I recently had the experience of assisting a man from Belgium who was in financial difficulties and unemployed. He had sent his daughter

to university and was now in the dreadful position of requiring assistance. He was one of the 980-odd unemployed in Brockville now seeking employment. His pride made it difficult for him to accept help. He said he would rather sell his home and go back to the country of his origin where he could secure employment.
I have letters from many disabled people. These are proud individuals who do not wish to beg. The suggestion was made last evening by an hon. member sitting to my right that questions of this nature should be taken out of the realm of politics. I subscribe to that. To play politics with a question of this nature is shameful and disgraceful.
The situation would be made easier for applicants for disability pensions if there were a medical board which could examine the individual and give an expert opinion as to his or her position. The limitations and handicaps of the people should be considered. Sometimes these limitations are internal, psychological and deep rooted. Many disabled Canadians have too much pride and courage, and an inherent sense of dignity to make application because of the implications of so doing. It is an evil and base practice that an aura of politicking should surround situations of this type. There has to be a certain degree of co-operation between provincial and federal representatives in matters of this kind and this co-operation should be on a completely non-political basis.
I have spoken at greater length than I intended. In concluding let me say that we on this side of the house will support this measure although we do not feel it is adequate. We are concerned at the government's failure to meet problems of this type realistically. We disapprove of the government's practice of applying ad hoc solutions to burning social problems. We in the Liberal party feel that Canada enjoys a growing, expanding economy. We feel that Canada has never had as great opportunities as lie before us today if the government would show more concern over policy than politics.
We in this party and the people of Canada would like to know what the government is going to do in this regard. It would appear from the statement made by the minister yesterday and from the remarks of the Prime Minister that the government is still not thinking in terms of Canada's potential for growth and expansion.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Monteith (Perth) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-62, to amend the Disabled Persons Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time?


Mr. Churchill:: Later this day.


Mr. Monteith (Perth):: Would it be possible to take second reading later this day, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to taking second reading of this bill later this day?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We would agree to that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could proceed to deal with Bills Nos. C-55 and C-56 standing in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and then take second reading of this bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house concur in the proposal made by the house leader?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire whether the bill has been circulated? We wish to consider the bill before proceeding, and would not wish to have second reading taken up so early in the day that we would not have an oportunity to scrutinize the bill carefully.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand that the house leader has given the assurance that the bill will be available for consideration.



OLD AGE ASSISTANCE ACT


Jay Waldo Monteith: the second reading of Bill No. C-55, to amend the Old Age Assistance Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are certain aspects of the amendments now before the house which I believe warrant some further explanation. As hon. members will see from the bill, we are proposing to re-enact section 3(1) of the Old Age Assistance Act to permit an increase of $10 in the monthly maximum payment available to senior citizens in the age groups 65 to 69 who are in need. This increase, as is the case with the existing amount, will be shared on a 50-50 basis by the federal and provincial governments if the latter give their assent to the present amendment.
Changes are also proposed in section 3(2) pertaining to income ceilings allowable in establishing eligibility for old age assistance. As I indicated at the resolution stage, these ceilings are being raised beyond the point
Old Age Assistance Act necessary to permit recipients to benefit fully from the higher maximum pension level. This means, in effect, that recipients will henceforth be in a position to have greater earnings without having their benefits reduced.
I might spend a few moments in outlining the effects of these changes. As the resolution indicated, allowable income ceilings are to be raised by $180 a year in the case of an unmarried recipient and by $360 a year in the case of married couples. For example, an unmarried recipient who is presently allowed to have $960 a year, including assistance, will be permitted a total of $1,140 a year. This will be made up of $780 in assistance payments and $360 in outside income. Under existing provisions the maximum outside income allowable without reduction in assistance is $300, which means that with approval of this amendment a recipient will be able to earn 20 per cent more than at the present time. The thinking behind this increase is, of course, to encourage individual initiative wherever possible so that the higher assistance rate may be supplemented by higher earnings.
In the case of a married couple, the maximum allowable income is now $1,620 a year including assistance. This is to be raised to $1,980 a year. With married couples, one spouse or both may be eligible for assistance. If one is eligible they can, of course, receive $780 by way of assistance but can have as much as $1,200 a year in outside income before there is any reduction in the assistance payable. Under present provisions their outside income is limited to $960. If both spouses are eligible they will be able to receive $1,560 by way of assistance and $420 by way of outside income. Under present provisions their outside income is limited to $300.
In the case where one spouse is blind the income ceilings are higher. Such a couple may in future receive as much as $2,340 a year in total income including assistance as against $1,980 under present provisions. Where one spouse receives old age assistance and the other a blindness allowance they will be able to receive as much as $1,560 a year by way of benefit, and to have in addition as much as $780 a year in outside income. The corresponding figures at present are $1,320 and $660 respectively.
Section 2 provides for an effective date of February 1, 1962, as far as the federal government is concerned. Since the old age assistance program is a joint undertaking with the provinces the latter will, of course, have to come to a decision to implement these changes in their own jurisdiction before the changes can become effective.
To this end, when the resolution preceding introduction of this bill was presented to

Old Age Assistance Act the house I wired each of the provinces informing them of the nature and scope of the proposed changes. Subsequently, when the bill was placed before the house copies of the same were immediately sent out to the provincial governments. We are, of course, hopeful that all will accept the present amendments, and when they do my department will do everything possible to assist in the revision of the agreements which form the basis for old age assistance payments in each province.
Assuming that all 10 provinces and the two territories decide to implement these changes, the added expenditures involved in so far as the federal government is concerned will be of the order of $7.2 million over the next 12 month period. This will bring our total annual outlay for old age assistance to an estimated $37.8 million.
There is one further point. While the lower age limit for this program under existing legislation is 65, there are people who are prematurely aged and also widows and spinsters in the age group 60-64, for example, who may be in circumstances where they need financial assistance. In such cases I would emphasize that although persons in these categories cannot qualify for old age assistance they are eligible for assistance, if in need, through provincial programs in which the federal government shares half the cost under the Unemployment Assistance Act. In this connection I think of recipients under the widows' allowances program in Alberta, who some years ago were brought within the federal-provincial sharing arrangements under the Unemployment Assistance Act. In addition, the recently introduced provisions for widows and spinsters in Quebec provide a further illustration of how this joint measure can be helpful in meeting the cost of payments to these persons who are in need. In other provinces social assistance for widows and spinsters has not been designated as a specific program in provincial legislation in the same manner. But there again social assistance is available to such persons when in need, with the federal government paying half the cost of payments made.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party will, of course, support this measure which is based on a bill that was introduced by the previous Liberal administration. The increase being proposed is essential. It will help to some extent to compensate for the continuing rise in the cost of living and the continuing rise in municipal, provincial and federal tax levels.
This particular plan of old age assistance arises out of action taken by the government


of Canada in 1950, when the federal government of that day removed the means test for persons over 70. I personally campaigned for this change in 1949 because previous to that time I had come face to face with many people of advanced years who were too proud to seek assistance even though they needed it desperately. To help overcome that situation the universal pension was put into effect in 1950.
At that time, however, it was intended to be a supplement to private savings and it was represented as being a supplement to private savings, but throughout the years it has been given a somewhat different interpretation. It has come to be represented as an amount which in its entirety should, in the view of this parliament, be ample for people to live on. This, of course, was not the original idea, and it is obvious that for most people it is quite inadequate for sustenance unless the person has some other means of support. Newspapermen have attempted to live on the old age pension and have demonstrated its inadequacy as a result of their experience. Of course it is inadequate for people who have no private savings. On the other hand, for people who do have private savings it is in many cases superfluous.
In the process of evolution the whole subject of pensions has become a political auction. I was very much impressed by the speech by the hon. member for Leeds a few minutes ago, who put this matter in perspective. We should not be required to deal in a political way with the lives of the senior citizens of this country. It is a retrograde step, and most unfortunate.
Notwithstanding the changes that are now before us the payments are still not going to be adequate to meet the needs. This was demonstrated by the minister himself when he spoke a few minutes ago. He said there are many widows and spinsters between the ages of 60 and 64 who are not covered by the act. In this regard he explained that in some provinces there are plans in which the federal government co-operates. I think he only mentioned two provinces, which means that in the other eight provinces and the territories there are no plans, either provincial or federal, to assist widows and spinsters between the ages of 60 and 64. The fact is that the gaps in the total program are still great.
The minister has advised that the permissible outside income of the recipient of this assistance will be increased, and this is desirable and welcome. However, the limitations are still such that if the outside income and the old age assistance were the only source of support, then in our metropolitan areas

such as Toronto and Montreal people would still be unable to exist in dignity on the amount of money provided.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that unless there is some more fundamental approach we shall continue with this auction, increasing the permissible income from time to time and increasing the pension a little bit from time to time, without coming to grips with the problem in its entirety. It seems to me that is what has to be done.
We have not been advised by the minister as to how the present plans, including the one before us, are to be financed. This is an important omission. It does not take any great amount of intelligence to spend money. It takes a great degree of intelligence to introduce measures which will get the country growing again in such a fashion that social security measures can be paid for from growth rather than by increases in debt. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the present government in this respect can be characterized as that of a second mortgage government. Rather than earning money and then spending that which has been earned, in which case there would be no interest charges to pay, the government spends the money first and has to pay interest on its borrowings. In effect they are paying twice for their expenditures. We believe it is unfortunate that the government should come to this parliament and request measures, desirable though they may be on their own merit, which are not financed from the dynamics of growth which we have come to understand and appreciate in this country in years gone by.
It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come for a comprehensive re-examination of our social security legislation; that the time has come for the introduction of a contributory pension plan which will enable people throughout their earning years to pay in some proportion of their annual income and, as a result, be entitled at the time of retirement to draw a pension adequate to their requirements. Such a plan would apply to widows and spinsters between the ages of 60 and 64 who are now not covered by any federal plan. This plan would also permit a greater variation, greater flexibility, in the age at which people retire, because there is a considerable difference in individual capacity. One person may, because of health or other reasons, find it necessary or desirable to retire at an earlier age than some other person. What we need is a comprehensive plan which is flexible enough to meet individual needs. It must be flexible enough to meet individual needs in such a way that the question of pride, the question of charity is removed, and so that the contributions made by people
Old Age Assistance Act throughout their earning years will entitle them to claim an adequate pension as a matter of right.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we wish that at this time the government had introduced such a plan rather than the amendments which have been placed before us. We think the government were tardy, having had the Clark report before them throughout these years and having promised this plan in the election campaigns of 1957 and 1958, in not preparing one for introduction at this time. The measures which have been introduced are further expedients; they are further ad hoc measures. They do not meet the needs in their entirety. They leave gaping holes in the needs, and they do not meet the objections which have existed in the past such as the fact that some people between the ages of 65 and 70 are reluctant to apply for old age assistance because they are too proud to do so.
It seems to me an invasion of private rights, Mr. Speaker, when officials of the federal government come and examine a person's assets and property as minutely as is essential under the administration of the Old Age Assistance Act. A very thorough investigation is required in order to guard against the possibility of abuse. However, there are people in this country who would prefer to go without old age assistance rather than to suffer that invasion of their private lives. This I can understand. Immediately it creates an anomaly, because some people are obtaining assistance and other people, equally entitled, are not. Both are taxpayers, but they are treated differently under the law because they are different types of people. The system of contributory pensions which must be introduced will eliminate these questions of individual philosophy and will provide, as a matter of right, a pension based on the earnings and contributions made by that individual throughout his working years.
If this can be accomplished it will reduce the existing anomalies. It will eliminate the necessity for investigations into the private lives of citizens. It will eliminate a situation in which, under the Old Age Pensions Act, millionaires and paupers receive the same payment, a payment which is completely inadequate to part of the population and completely unnecessary for another part of the population. I believe such a plan would be a considerable advantage to the portability of pensions and to the real security of Canadians when they reach the age of retirement.
However, Mr. Speaker, this type of plan has not been introduced. It seems, from what the government has said, that there is no possibility of it being introduced before a federal election is called. We have no assurance that it would be introduced even if the
722	HOUSE OF
Old Age Assistance Act government were returned at the next general election, which is doubtful. In the meantime we have no alternative but to support this measure, inadequate though it is, as an improvement over the act as it has been up until this time.


William Arnold Peters: I welcome this consideration given to old age assistance, in that it is a justification for those requests I made during a previous discussion on disabled people. In every sense old age assistance is a welfare scheme. Therefore this increase is of value, and the government is to be congratulated on having introduced it. It means that those who are not able to work any more will be able to pick up a little bit of money to help tide them over their difficulty.
I am in agreement with the previous speaker, who said this was not considered to be a substitute for work. It certainly is not, but we have reached the stage now at which we are all in agreement that we have to develop a national contributory and portable superannuation scheme which will take into consideration the advances in our society produced by the social changes that have taken place. We should face up to the fact that in a very short period of time there has been a total change from the dependency of elderly people on their families to a dependency on the state. By our changing technocracy many of these people have no alternative but to rely on assistance from the state.
The thinking of the Canadian people has changed from what it was in my grandfather's day, when it was accepted and demanded that the sons and daughters of elderly couples should be responsible for their parents' welfare. Now it is generally accepted that it is right to pay old age pensions to all the elderly people in the country. It is no longer considered as welfare but as a pension.
Years ago the Liberals used to refer to this as a national pension program. They considered it proper to provide national pensions. They considered this to be a far reaching step in providing national pensions, but I am surprised that few of our parliamentarians are willing to give credit to those unions which pioneered in this field and created a general acceptance for a national pension scheme. I am surprised that very few of them remember it was the unions which pioneered in this field long before the politicians entered it.
Looking at the record across the country we find that many plants have fairly respectable pension schemes and are only awaiting government assistance and leadership to introduce those plans into a national scheme


so they could be far more embracing than the present system under which they operate. For many years the C.C.F. party was in agreement that something should be done in that respect, and the plans that are being discussed today were outlined in this house by that party on numerous occasions. Now it is surprising to find there is very little difference of opinion in regard to those plans.
Should the political winds blow in their direction after the coming election, then it will only be a matter of one more election until a Conservative government gives a $75 pension. In fact, in the position they are in at present they are proposing that but, having been more farsighted, we saw this coming many years ago and we have been recommending $75 for a long time. In that connection it should be borne in mind that when we recommended $75 we knew there would be a limit eventually to the amount of money which governments could give under the so-called national scheme which has been in effect in Canada for a number of years. We knew that eventually consideration would have to be given to the establishment of a contributory section in the national pension scheme, and we suggested that this be done in a similar manner to the introduction of unemployment insurance.
This would mean that the federal government would administer the plan, as it does now, but it would also collect and retain the moneys that were collected on a national basis from all employees in industry and from the self-employed. These people would pay contributions to the federal government, which would hold the pension funds in trust for them.
We also believe the employers should be asked to make contributions. It is no longer possible for the average worker to accumulate money on his own for his retirement. I think, if we are to be fair, we do not expect workers or average citizens to save for their old age. If we did then we would be dishonest, because looking back over the years we can remember that a superannuation plan of 15 or 20 years ago created a maximum pension fund of $10,000, producing what would have been a fairly high standard of living in those days on $100 or $150 a month. However, that would prove totally inadequate in terms of purchasing power at present, and those who contributed to such plans now find they have only half the pensions they expected. Surely no country would intentionally do this to those who are seeking to provide their own superannuation programs.
Public thought in this country has increased to the extent that we now assume responsibility for our elderly citizens. We are now going to give increased attention to those

people who, because of their age, are no longer employable, and that is a factor which is changing very rapidly. There are many people in my own area seeking work at the age of 50, but they are not employable in terms of employers' interests. They apply for jobs, they are physically capable of doing them, but they are told they are too old. Indeed, in the mining field not only are they too old at 50 years but they are too old at 40, and some of the mines are raising their standards until prospective employees are told they are too old if they are nearing the age of 40.
The changes in technocracy and the changes in the employment picture are creating a demand for an immediate start on a contributory pension scheme, letting workers contribute from their earnings so that in many cases they will be granted an opportunity of working beyond what is now considered the acceptable age of employment. The fact that they would be contributing to a pension plan would mean their age would no longer be a factor, and would extend their employment.
This matter has been considered many times by governments in the hope that they would find a solution for the problem without getting involved in it themselves. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that a few years ago the Liberal government, through the then minister of national revenue, circulated a statement on principles and rules respecting pension plans for the purposes of income tax. They believed at that time that if income tax deductions were allowed on plans that were properly vested, then probably the labour unions themselves and employee-employer relationships would allow for a large segment of our country to be covered by this particular means.
This was not only considered by that government; it was considered by this government. In the Canada Gazette of July 18, 1959 this matter was again introduced by order in council and was again tried. In both cases this was unsuccessful in establishing what would be acceptable to industry, to employees and to the income tax department as a proper method of assessment.
I hope that for the sake of the old age pensioners, those on old age assistance, for social justice and the social picture in Canada, we do not reduce this matter of national pensions to an election issue and that we are serious when we say it will be referred to a committee. I hope that if an election is not anticipated immediately this matter will be referred to a committee of the house and that we will be given an opportunity to discuss the proposals this session, not in the light of an election but in the light of deliberations
Old Age Assistance Act in order that we may arrive at a pension plan which will be more acceptable and satisfactory to the Canadian people.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: One o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay West calls it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must inform the house that if the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Jay Waldo Monteith: In closing the debate on second reading of this bill I do not think I have anything to add to my opening remarks which were explanatory of the cost of these proposals and the amount of money involved. The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) asked how these payments were to be financed. I simply say that this is a matter of financing, and, of course, it will be dealt with at all times by the Minister of Finance.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-Agreements with provinces.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I had intended to be here to make a few brief remarks on second reading but I had a number of students from Carleton University wanting to be informed on the C.C.F.-New Democratic party principles and I was delayed. I kept on telling them that I must get away, and they said: do tell us more, this is wonderful. That caused me to be a few minutes late.
I did want to say, first of all, that we support this bill and welcome the improvement which it brings into the lives of those persons who rely on old age assistance. We also welcome the increase in the permissible income. I think that is a fortunate provision because it will bring within the scope of the legislation a number of people who have in the past been denied assistance because of the terms of the regulations.
However, I want first of all to say that the term "old age assistance" is perhaps not the best which could be chosen. We could use a much better term. It reminds me somewhat of the parish relief we had when I was a boy. I wonder whether the minister might consider calling this "old age security, stage 1" and
724	HOUSE OF
Old Age Assistance Act then we might have stage 2. I say this because I feel there are people who, because of the means test and because of the name itself, which, as I have mentioned, suggests charitable assistance or parish relief, may hesitate to take advantage of the assistance which is available. I offer that as a suggestion to the minister.
Before the committee stage ends I would appreciate the minister informing us just how the regulations are drafted and telling us exactly what arrangements are made for their administration. I happened to receive in the mail during the noon hour the annual report of the department of social welfare of the government of the province of British Columbia. It gives some interesting information with respect to the administration of old age security, old age assistance and assistance to blind and disabled persons, in addition to making some interesting comments. I think it would be helpful to hon. members if the minister could give us a short explanation of how the regulations are drafted, how agreements are reached with the provinces and, finally, what is the understanding as far as the provinces are concerned.
In concluding my brief remarks I wish to say once again that I hope this will be the last time we shall be asked to nibble at this legislation by passing a succession of amending acts of the present type and that in the very near future we shall be dealing with an over-all plan which will provide for the needs of all these people to an even greater extent than at the present time.


Jay Waldo Monteith: In answer to the hon. gentleman may I say that the regulations are prepared as a result of conferences with provincial ministers. I held a meeting of provincial ministers here either in 1959 or 1960 at which time we went over many of the regulations in order to arrive at a uniform operation of the act throughout the country. Certain ministers will, of course, put forth various suggestions not acceptable to others and then it is a matter of reaching a happy compromise. The provinces operate the act completely. We simply issue cheques to the provinces upon request.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a question on this subject? Is it necessary for the hon. gentleman in the administration of this act and the regulations made in connection with it to reach complete agreement between himself and the provinces as to the terms laid down by the legislation? It is possible that some provinces may be more lenient than others in their interpretation of these regulations? As the minister knows I raised this question some time ago. Under the original regulations one had to be so incapacitated as to be


scarcely able to move in order to qualify. If one could get up by oneself and go to the bathroom he was disqualified. I believe some change was made at the second meeting to which the minister referred. I agree with the hon. member for Kootenay West that the regulations are so stringent as to mean that one must almost be dead before becoming eligible.
Returning to my original question, is complete agreement necessary between the federal and provincial governments with respect to the administration of the regulations?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member is referring to the Disabled Persons Act. We are now dealing
with amendments to the Old Age Assistance Act. However, I shall be pleased to answer the question.
In each province there is a board of doctors appointed by the federal and provincial governments. The board meets and decides on cases. Periodically the doctors come to Ottawa for the purpose of achieving uniformity of interpretation of the regulations. I do not recall the month but early in 1961 such a meeting was held in Ottawa. The purpose of these meetings is to attempt to bring about uniformity of operation of the Disabled Persons Act.


Harold Edward Winch: Is it necessary that a person qualify under the definition of "disability" in order to receive old age assistance? Are the regulations the same in this respect under the two acts?


Jay Waldo Monteith: In order to receive old age assistance no similar disability requirement must be met. It is merely based on a means test.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, the minister is empowered under the act to make an agreement with each of the provinces. The legislatures of some of the provinces are not in session at this time and the provinces may experience some delay in introducing enabling legislation. This legislation also empowers the minister to commence payments on February 1. If a province experiences delay in enacting enabling legislation will the payments on the part of the federal government be retroactive?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I suggest this is a matter for the provinces to decide. As far as they are concerned this legislation is optional. At the present time all provinces participate in the payment of $55 a month and are free to choose to participate in the payment of $65 a month. If the provinces wish to commence payments on February 1 we will co-operate.


Harold Edward Winch: I have received a number of letters from people who are in receipt of the burnt out pension. Is there a tie up between the two acts? I understand that a reduction will be made in what is received under the War Veterans Allowance Act. Is consideration being given to enabling recipients to receive the benefit of the increase?


Jay Waldo Monteith: All I know about the operation of the Old Age Assistance Act is that this payment is payable to people between ages 65 and 69 who are in need of special assistance. Under the old age assistance plan we are agreeable to paying 50 per cent up to $65 a month.
May I point out that there is available special assistance over and above this under the Unemployment Assistance Act. We participate to the extent of 50 per cent with each province in that respect.


Harold Edward Winch: I wish to follow up what the minister said in view of the fact that the Minister of Veterans Affairs is in the chamber. If a person is drawing assistance under the Old Age Assistance Act or the Old Age Security Act between ages 65 and 70 or over, the war veterans allowance received by such person will be reduced by $10, as I understand it. Will the minister say whether any change will be made in this regard?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the debate is ranging beyond the scope of the bill presently before us. These questions would be more properly raised when we are discussing the war veterans allowance.
Under the War Veterans Allowance Act other income is taken into account. There is a ceiling with regard to the amount that war veterans allowance recipients may receive. Payments under pension schemes are considered part of that other income and such income has to be accounted for. Therefore, there is a reduction in the amount received under the War Veterans Allowance Act. The same is true in circumstances where a veteran's casual earnings exceed $900 a year or where his income from other assets such as property holdings exceeds a certain sum. A ceiling has been set.


Harold Edward Winch: Is the minister considering raising by a similar amount the allowable income received by those drawing the war veterans allowance?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, we are now getting into the field of war veterans allowances which is beyond the scope of the bill. Let us not forget so rapidly that the war veterans allowance was raised by 20 per cent just a few months ago.
Old Age Assistance Act


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the hon. member for Welland, has drawn attention to one aspect of the legislation which I feel deserves further consideration. The minister told us the purpose of this legislation is to meet a need. Some payments we are making are conditonal upon the ability of the provinces to pay or match the government's increase. Certainly the need is not conditional upon the financial condition of any province. The need exists, and if it exists and if we intend to meet it, then I do not think this is the proper way of doing it. If we are prepared to pay half the cost, why do we not pay $32.50 and then every person in Canada no matter where he lives would be treated on the same basis? We now treat him not on a basis of his need but on the basis of where he happens to live and on the basis of the financial ability of his province.
I know that in my own province we are not very flush with money. Although we are poor, we cannot afford to turn this down, but the money which has to be allocated to match the government's increase has got to come from somewhere else. It has got to be paid at the expense of other provincial programs and to my mind that certainly amounts to interference in the budgeting of a provincial government and interference in the ordinary planning of their own programs. If we really and sincerely want to meet the need and are prepared to pay up to half the $65, why do we not do that and then let each province supplement that according to their ability to pay?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I believe we are dealing with all citizens of Canada on an equitable basis in this respect. We leave it up to the province to decide whether it can afford to meet this amount of money. The $6 increase in 1957 was handled in exactly the same way, so I see no reason at this stage for bringing forward this other matter.


Chesley William Carter: The fact that we do something in one way at one particular time should not mean that we have got to continue to do it that way forever. That does not seem to me to be much of an argument.


Jay Waldo Monteith: One thing this
government has never done is to follow the example set by the previous administration.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: How inconsistent can you get?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would point out that in the speech from the throne it was indicated that these increases would be made, that an over-all social security plan would be brought into being and that a welfare

Old Age Assistance Act council would be established. These are steps in the welfare field which are certainly going to be advantageous to Canadians.


Chesley William Carter: We are purporting to meet the need in this legislation. If the need exists in my province and the province cannot afford to pay its share of the increase, will the minister deny that the need is not being met?


Jay Waldo Monteith: All I can say is that I think the province bears some responsibility in this respect.


Chesley William Carter: Yes, but the responsibility that the province bears depends upon its financial ability to pay. That is the point I am trying to drive home. I do not think this kind of legislation is the proper way to deal with the matter. If we are prepared to budget for certain payments to assist people in the group from 65 to 70, let us do it on a basis that will not discriminate as between people in one part of Canada and those in another because of the financial condition of the provinces in which they live.
I want to ask the minister another question. The payments to those between 65 and 70 are based on a means test, and I presume that the conditions of that means test are outlined in the agreement made between the provincial authority and the federal government. We have set forth here one type of means test, namely, permissible income, but I know that in my province there is another means test involving the assets that a person has.
If a person is between 65 and 70 and has a certain amount of money in the bank or has property which can be converted into cash, I do not think he is eligible for an allowance. Is that type of means test incorporated in the agreement between the province and the federal government?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, this is in the agreement between the province and the federal government, or in the regulations. Actually the situation is that if a person has some property a percentage of the assessed value is taken as being an amount that is considered as income in arriving at the total which the person may have before his allowance is reduced. In other words, if he has some property or if he has a certain amount of money a particular percentage is applied. I do not have the regulations with me, but I do not think it would be fair to all the other people of Canada to suggest that some consideration should not be given to the simple fact that a person does have some money or does have some property.


Chesley William Carter: There is no indication of that in the legislation. I have one other question. Is the means test relating to personal assets the same for every province? Are the same conditions in each agreement no matter what province it is?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is it the minister's expectation at the present time that all 10 provinces will be participating in the increase?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would hope so. As I mentioned earlier, wires were sent to all of them the day the resolution appeared on the order paper and a copy of the bill was sent to each of them immediately it was available to the house.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask a question about a point that has always intrigued me. A person who is eligible for an allowance under the act may be a renter or a home owner but if the person is a home owner he has to face a means test. The home owner has to pay taxes, insurance and expenses of upkeep. If a person has been able to build himself up to the point where he owns his own home, which cannot be a very expensive one because of the means test, why do the federal government and the provinces insist that because he owns his own home he must be regarded as having had a 6 per cent revenue from the home when in fact there is no revenue at all? Why is that position taken?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I believe the figure is actually 5 per cent of the assessed value, not 6 per cent of the value of the home. As I mentioned earlier, I feel that the person who has had to pay high rent may not have been able to save during his lifetime, though I am not going to say that he has not saved. I intend no disrespect to such people. However, I feel that the person who does own his home has an asset that the other person does not have and consequently it has been felt in the past and up till now that some consideration should be given to that fact. I am not going to say that 5 per cent of the assessed value is the correct figure. I really think that in some cases it is high. This is another matter which I trust the welfare council to be formed will investigate. They will be studying problems of this nature in order to level out what may appear to be idiosyncrasies or inequities.


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


Jay Waldo Monteith: the second reading of Bill No. C-56, to amend the Blind Persons Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed, of course, to give effect to the proposed $10 increase in maximum benefits under the Blind Persons Act. The cost of this increase, as is the case with existing benefits, will be shared by the provincial and federal governments, the federal contribution amounting to 75 per cent of the total bill. As indicated in the resolution, it is also proposed to raise the allowable income ceiling by $180 a year in the case of an unmarried recipient and by $360 a year in the case of married couples. These new levels are higher than would be necessary to permit recipients to receive the full benefit of the higher maximum pension benefit. Our aim here is to encourage individual initiative by allowing recipients to have greater outside earnings without reduction of assistance.
The new levels also continue the tradition of higher income ceilings for recipients of blindness allowance as against recipients of old age assistance and disability allowances. Under present provisions, an unmarried recipient of blindness allowances without a dependant child or children is allowed to have $1,200 a year including allowances. This is to be increased to a total of $1,380 a year, made up of $780 by way of allowance and $600 by way of outside income. An unmarried recipient with a dependant child or children who is now allowed to have $1,680 including allowances will be permitted a- total of $1,860 a year. This will be made up of $780 by way of allowances and $1,080 by way of outside income.
A married couple where one spouse is blind is now allowed $1,980 a year in total income including benefit. This will be raised to $2,340 a year. Where one spouse is eligible for blindness allowance and the other for old age assistance, they will be able to receive as much as $1,560 a year by way of a benefit and have in addition $780 in outside income. If the blind spouse is receiving an allowance but the other spouse is not receiving a benefit, the maximum allowance payable is $780 a year and the outside income can be as much as $1,560 a year without reduction of benefit.
Where both spouses are blind, the couple is presently allowed $2,100 a year in total income including allowances. This amount is to be increased to $2,460. Where both spouses receive benefit, a maximum amount
Blind Persons Act
payable is $1,560 a year and in addition they can receive $900 in outside income. Where one spouse is eligible for the allowance and the other is not, the couple can receive $780 a year by way of allowances and $1,680 a year in outside income.
Since the Blind Persons Act is a joint federal-provincial undertaking, the comments I made with respect to the old age assistance bill are applicable to this amendment. That is, it will require the agreement of the provinces and territories to give effect to the proposed higher maximum benefits and higher income ceilings. As far as the federal government is concerned, the effective date of these changes will be February 1, 1962 and it is our hope that the provinces will find it possible to match this within their own jurisdiction. Copies of this bill have been sent to each province and my department stands ready to do everything possible to expedite the drawing up of new draft agreements embodying our present proposals.
Assuming that all ten provinces and the territories agree to the changes now before the house, it is estimated that the resulting increase in total outlays under the program will be of the order of $1.1 million in a 12 month period.
At the resolution stage, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) asked me how many persons were covered in the first year of the operation of pensions for the blind. For the fiscal year 1937-38 which was the year in question, the number of pensioners totalled 1,946. At that time the act covered blind persons aged 40 and over. On this basis the case load rose to 4,512 in 1938-39 and was running at between 5,000 and 7,000 over the next seven years. In 1947 the age requirement was lowered to 21 years and the number of recipients gradually climbed to slightly over 11,000 in 1950-51.
On December 31, 1951, the previous legislation ceased to operate, being replaced by the Old Age Security Act, the Old Age Assistance Act and the Blind Persons Act. Of the 11,335 blind recipients as at December 31, 1951, 3,212 were transferred to old age security and the remaining 8,123 became recipients under the Blind Persons Act. Since that time the case load has moved upward to the point where in December, 1961, 8,562 blind persons were receiving benefits.
I should point out that while significant, these figures do not of course present a complete picture of the number of blind persons in Canada. The most comprehensive source of information in this regard is the register maintained by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind which in 1961 reported a total of 24,117 blind persons in Canada. Of this

Blind Persons Act
number 9,102 were over 70 and presumed to be in receipt of old age security. At the same date, there were 8,642 recipients of blindness allowance and when the number benefiting under these two acts is added to the 351 war blinded and the 289 blind persons receiving workmen's compensation, it will be seen that a total of 18,384 persons were in receipt of benefits of one kind or another. This means that about 76 per cent of the number of blind persons registered with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind were receiving benefit under government programs.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate also requested a general picture of blindness in Canada. The figures reported by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind indicate a slow but steady increase in the prevalence of blindness in Canada over the past 15 years. This apparent increase is due in part to a more comprehensive reporting of blindness. However, with the increase in life span, more citizens reach the older age groups in which blindness due to glaucoma, cataracts and degenerating conditions occurs more frequently. Nearly half of the total number of registered blind are over 65, and over one third of the total are over 70 years of age.
As the house is aware, my department has taken an active interest in the prevention, treatment and rehabilitation of blind persons. In co-operation with nine of the provincial governments, we conduct a program to provide operations for the restoration of sight to recipients of blindness allowances. Alberta does not participate in the treatment program, having its own plan in this regard. The great majority of these operations are done for the removal of cataracts. However, in recent years corneal transplants have been performed with increasing frequency, and in the past two years this type of surgery was carried out in eight per cent of the cases receiving treatment. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that we carry out the treatment program in cooperation with nine of the provinces. This is handled through the blindness control division of the health branch of my department, and we participate to the extent of 75 per cent of the cost.
In the past fiscal year 105 persons were provided with treatment under this program. The great majority of persons accepting treatment were in the group of approximately 800 citizens who were granted blindness allowances in the course of the year and who were, for the most part, persons whose blindness was of relatively recent development.
Since the inception of the treatment program in 1948, a total of 731 persons had been treated by the end of the past fiscal year. Of these, 562 or 77 per cent, had their sight

restored to the extent that they were no longer blind, and the majority of the remaining 23 per cent benefited by varying degrees of improvement in guiding vision. The house can be sure that my department will continue to do everything possible to reduce the toll taken by blindness in Canada. Present provisions will be carried forward and new avenues will be explored wherever they hold out hope for further progress.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party is of course pleased to support this measure which, once again, was put on the statute books of Canada by this party when in office. I think it is a recognized principle that blind persons are entitled to special consideration because people who do not have the benefit of sight have extra expenditures over and above those people who do have their sight. The amount provided by this measure is not adequate to meet the need in some cases but it is a welcome improvement and, therefore, will receive our support.
I was very interested to learn from the minister of the work, including the surgery, which has been taking place in nine of the provinces through co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. We hope this will continue and that whatever support is required will be provided by the federal government. This, Mr. Speaker, is a measure which will commend itself to all hon. members in the house.


Harold Edward Winch: We
in this group most certainly welcome the beneficial changes to be made in the legislation in aid of the non-sighted in our country. As I mentioned previously, and as I repeat, we are to be thankful that we are dealing with an extension of the welfare state legislation so early in the session, legislation as it applies to our senior citizens over 70 years of age, to old age assistance for those between the ages of 65 and 70, to those persons who are completely incapable of work, to those who are completely disabled and now, in this measure, to the blind.
To what has already been said I wish to add a special word on behalf of the blind. It was my privilege, for 20 years in the provincial legislature, to work very closely with the C.N.I.B. on the problems which they brought before us and it is my belief, without any disparagement whatsoever by remark or otherwise to others who need assistance on a welfare basis, that we should give particular attention to the blind.
If I heard correctly, the minister said blindness affects only somewhere in the neighbourhood of less than 10,000 people. I would like to ask him whether he and his

department have given any particular study to the question of the federal authority taking over the financial responsibility of aid to the blind. In all the welfare extension acts we now have before us, with the exception of one, there is the understandable problem involved of consent by the provinces and, on occasion, of changes in the British North America Act, our constitution.
However the problem of blindness is so particularized and so worthy, involving as it does not a million persons as in the case of the old age pensioners or less than 100,000 of the disabled and those with old age assistance, that I hope consideration could be given to it. Perhaps the minister will tell us whether the federal government has considered taking over complete financial responsibility for it. The blind need that extra assistance which nobody else requires and then, having provided it, the provinces could go ahead from there.
I know that raises something which many of us do not like because we want to see all Canadians receiving the same; but in this particular regard I believe this is an avenue that would not be too expensive to follow. It should be the strict responsibility of the federal government, with the provinces giving further aid, and I would like to hear from the minister whether that particular aspect of the problem has been considered by himself and his department.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, just a few words to say that we are happy to know that the Canadian government has taken those measures to help the blind.
As the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) indicated, there are in Canada 24,000 blind persons, including 6,000 in the province of Quebec and 175 in the constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
In the United States, blind persons are well looked after. They pay no income tax and, when they ask for a pension, they do not have to face a means test.
I wonder if the Canadian government, in conjunction with the provinces, could not study the advisibility of establishing an eye bank in every province of Canada. At the present time, there are only two in the country, one in Ontario and one in Quebec. On the other hand, there are about 60 in the United States, which receive grants from the state and the central government.
Blind Persons Act
I wonder if, after consultation with the province, it would not be possible to reach a federal-provincial agreement to increase the number of eye banks throughout Canada. I think it would be good advertising for that effort and would also make it possible to help greatly our blind people, as it is done now in the United States.
(Text):


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would just comment briefly on the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver East. Ever since the inception of the Blind Persons Act the federal government has had cognizance of the special situation in which these unsighted persons find themselves, in that this is the one assistance act in which the federal government participates to the extent of 75 per cent of the cost, not only in the allowances but in the special care I mentioned.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm mentioned the possibility of having more eye banks. All I can say in respect of the special consideration suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver East, and suggested in this other matter of eye banks, is that I would hope the new national council of welfare would be able to give all these matters very close study and advise the government as to further consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-Agreements with provinces.
Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister whether he can give the committee any statistics with regard to the number of blind persons in Canada, particularly the number of children and the age groups, and whether blindness is increasing or decreasing?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I thought I gave rather comprehensive figures in my opening remarks on second reading, but I will be glad to repeat them for the hon. member. In 1937-38 the number of pensioners was 1,946. At that time the act covered blind persons aged 40 and over. On this basis the case load rose to 4,512 in 1938-39 and it ran between 5,000 and 7,000 over the next seven years.
In 1947 the age requirement was lowered to 21 years. The number of recipients gradually rose to 11,000 in 1950-51. On December 31, 1951, when the previous legislation ceased to operate and the new old age security, old age assistance and blindness allowances acts

Blind Persons Act
came into being there were 11,335 blind persons; 3,212 were transferred to old age security and the remaining 8,123 then became recipients under the Blind Persons Act. This has grown from 8,123 in December, 1951 to 8,562 in December, 1961, an increase of 439.
The best source we have for ascertaining figures in this respect is the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. They reported in December a total of 24,112 blind persons; 9,102 were over 70 and are presumed to be in receipt of old age security benefits. At that time there were 8,642 recipients of blindness allowances. When the number benefiting under these two acts is added to the 351 war blinded and 289 blind persons receiving workmen's compensation it will be noted that 18,384 persons were in receipt of benefits of one kind or another. This would be 76 per cent of the total registration. Amother estimate is that nearly half of the total number of registered blind are over 65, and about one third are over 70 years of age.


Chesley William Carter: I thank the minister for that information. I was really interested in another figure. I know the minister has given the various categories of people receiving benefits under the act and these groups have changed over the years because of the different conditions of age imposed in the legislation. I was interested in whether there has been an increase in blindness as a percentage of our population. As our population increases, naturally we are going to have more blind people, but I was wondering whether blindness is on the increase. Is it just keeping pace with our increase in population, is it increasing faster than our population, or is it increasing less?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, my estimation would be that it is not increasing faster than the population, but it is more apt to be present in the instance of older people. As the ageing of people becomes further and further advanced I think it is quite logical to expect that there will be some increase in the percentage of blind people.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister for the definition of blindness for the purposes of this act.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I do not have that information with me. I know the hon. member would be very interested in it and I will be very happy to get the actual definition as it appears in the agreements and regulations and let him have a copy of it.


William Hector McMillan: Has it been liberalized lately in regard to the degree of blindness for which these people receive a pension?


Jay Waldo Monteith: There was a slight change in the definition comparatively recently. I cannot tell the hon. member whether it was exactly a liberalization until I look at the definition.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister say whether there is any difference between the provinces as to the extent of blindness, on a proportionate basis to the population? Does the minister have any statistics to that effect?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I do not.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? Now?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Now, by leave.


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



DISABLED PERSONS ACT


Jay Waldo Monteith: the second reading of Bill No. C-62, to amend the Disabled Persons Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Are hon. members satisfied that sufficient copies of the bill are available, as I believe they are?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in commenting on the resolution, the purpose of this amending bill is twofold. It increases the maximum monthly allowances to $65 a month and raises the over-all income ceilings by $180 a year in the case of single persons and $360 a year in the case of married persons. These changes are an exact duplicate of those which we have already discussed in connection with the old age assistance bill and I therefore do not feel it necessary to elaborate further on their implications.
Again, provincial agreements will be necessary to give effect to the amendments. As is the case with the program as a whole, the federal government will pay half the cost of the increased outlays involved, which are expected to run at about $6.6 million for the next 12 month period.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party will support this measure. In reviewing the debate which has taken place at the resolution stage it is pretty obvious that it went far afield and covered a great deal of territory, and nothing would be served by attempting to recapitulate it at this time. However it does point up, I think, one or two things. First I think it underlines the necessity for a comprehensive review of social security legislation. Some of these acts have now been in force for a considerable period of time and a great deal of experience has been gained in their administration and operation. The time has arrived when a fundamental approach to the subject would probably yield some changes which would be beneficial not only to those persons who are in need but also to those responsible for the administration of the several acts.
The other factor is the question of payments and the capacity to raise the moneys required by these several bills. It has been the contention of those of us on this side of the house that the government has not produced legislation which will get the Canadian economy going at the rate necessary to support not only the measures before us but other necessary augmentations which will be required in the not very distant future. We therefore hope that before this session has proceeded much further the government will bring before parliament a thorough report on how it proposes to get Canada going again and how it proposes to finance the legislation which has been introduced so far.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I be pardoned for just making one statement in view of what has been said by the previous speaker? During the entire time of the present government and in the years preceding under the administration of a previous government we in this group have always spoken in favour of an over-all security program as against a hodgepodge of differing legislation.
We are most happy to have heard the remarks of the previous speaker and to know he has finally seen the light. That is a matter of record.
We welcome the introduction of this legislation which will be of undoubted assistance to disabled persons who are eligible under the terms of the legislation and the regulations agreed upon between the federal and the provincial authorities.
I am sorry I was late coming in this afternoon and that therefore I made certain remarks following a previous speaker because I thought I was at that time on this bill. So without repeating myself and thereby delaying the house I hope the minister, as soon as
Disabled Persons Act
we reach the committee stage, will answer the questions I raised previously which are of the utmost importance, namely, how they decide when a person is considered disabled under the terms of this bill and whether or not there can be any liberalization, with a small "1" of those regulations. I should also like to be told whether it is required that there should be the consent of all the provinces or whether individual agreements can be reached with those who would like to have a clear understanding as to the meaning of this bill.
I will leave any further comments until the committee stage and after I hear the answer of the Minister of National Health and Welfare on these matters.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I am entirely in agreement with the provisions of the bill, but before we leave this group of four bills with reference to social justice, I should like to clear up a couple of matters which arose during the extended debate on this bill on the resolution stage.
The one matter that concerns me was the statement made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) which does not seem to me to have been answered. He said in effect that this increase is really no greater than the $6 increase which the Liberals made in 1957, bearing in mind the rise in the cost of living. I felt that the two increases which have been made of $9 and $10 must have been much greater. I have taken the trouble to look into a few figures, and not merely to belie the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate but to point out the real facts I should like to present a few brief statistics on this point.
From 1951 to 1957, the period from when the act was introduced until the first amendment, the cost of living in Canada increased from 113.7 to 121.9 or 8.2 points which was an increase of 7.26 per cent. The pension increase at that date, as we know, was $6 which was calculated at exactly 15 per cent of the former amount. From 1957 when the $6 increase was introduced, until 1962, the last available figure, the cost of living increased from 121.9 to 129.8 or 7.9 points representing a percentage of 6.45. The pension increase during that period was from $46 to $65, which is $19 or 41.9 per cent. The increase of $6, which was 15 per cent, was brought about as a result of a 7.2 per cent increase in the cost of living. The increase in allowance was about double the increase in cost of living. The later increase was based on a cost of living increase of 6.45 per cent with a pension increase of 41 per cent which

Disabled Persons Act
is about six times the amount of the cost of living increase. Therefore I think that to say there is any relation between an increase of twice the amount and an increase of six times is not in any way correct or nearly correct.
Then in connection with the same figures there were allegations that the cost of living during the last five years under a Conservative government had grown very extensively. An examination of the figures shows that for the years I have mentioned, from 1951 to 1957, the cost of living increase was 7.26 per cent. In the past five years it was only 6.45 per cent so that on the whole the increase in the cost of living under the two parties has been about the same, though the pension increase has been much greater.
There is one other thing I should like to mention before taking my seat. During the debate on the resolution there was a good deal of discussion about federal-provincial shared programs. The subject was originally raised, I believe, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) made a lengthy statement in reply. The final word on this particular subject is, I think, given in a dispatch which appears in today's Montreal Gazette written by Robert McKenzie reporting on a statement made by the Hon. Rene Levesque the national resources minister of the province of Quebec. According to this, Mr. Levesque said that the federal Liberal party, under Quebec pressure, had pledged itself to withdraw from cost sharing programs.
I think it is very significant that this change in policy should come under pressure from a Liberal party in a specific province.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, would my hon. friend permit a question? Is the hon. gentleman reading a direct quotation from Mr. Levesque or just a newspaper report?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am reading a newspaper report, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I question whether the hon. member is relevant in departing into a discussion of the problems of federal-provincial arrangements. It is true that this is a bill which authorizes an agreement between the provinces but the principle involved in the amendment is one of the amount of assistance to disabled persons. I should not like to see the debate become enlarged as a result of my not cautioning the hon. member to keep strictly on the track.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to say anything more. I shall conclude by asking whether the policy might again be changed after the visit of the premier of Newfoundland yesterday and today?


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Speaker, we are now at second reading stage of the bill to pay pensions to the disabled. I had hoped we could get away from politics and questions concerning how much is paid by whom in discussing this measure.
I wish to make some criticisms at this time. I trust the minister will not consider that I am criticizing his department because what applies there now probably applied before. I have had considerable experience over the years with people attempting to qualify for disability pensions. I believe some confusion exists with respect to the interpretation of the words "totally and permanently disabled".
The minister explained today that in Ottawa from time to time conferences are held of doctors of provincial boards, to give consideration to the various conditions that might cause total and permanent disability. Probably such conferences were held during the tenure of office of the previous minister.
Yesterday the hon. member for Timiskam-ing (Mr. Peters) said that he thought a person with a disability might qualify in one province while another individual with the same condition living in another province might be denied the pension. I believe that this could happen. Confusion exists in the minds of medical men largely because they do not understand what constitutes a total and permanent disability under this act.
If a person has advanced arthritis and is confined to a wheelchair it is usually not difficult for him to qualify for the pension. However, there are many other conditions which are just as disabling in terms of the individual making a living and the victims of these conditions frequently find it difficult to qualify for a pension under the act.
I can think of patients of my own in the past who were unable to qualify for the pension. I can think of mental and psychological conditions which are disabling in terms of the individual earning a livelihood. I know of people with schizophrenia whose condition does not warrant their being hospitalized but who are unable to earn a living. They have such negative personalities they could not stick with a job for more than an hour and certainly they require direction. These people cannot earn a living.
I have a vivid recollection of a woman who was so psychologically upset she could not earn a livelihood. After a period of hospitalization she would appear to be well but when discharged she would lapse back to her previous condition.
Not many people who suffer from a condition such as premature aging as a result of

arteriosclerosis are able to quality for a pension under the act. Let us take coronary disease of the heart as another example. I have seen a patient as young as age 18 die of this disease. How many in their thirties or forties could qualify for a pension even if disabled to the extent that they were not able to walk very much on the level because of heart disease?
There are certain diseases which have remissions. I think of leukemia, for example. A person applying for a pension under the act during a period of remission would certainly have no chance of qualifying because he would look so well. The situation would be much improved if the experts would always accept the true report sent in by the doctor, but I have found that is not always the case. But differences of opinion would naturally arise.
There are a number of disabling conditions in respect of which a doctor cannot honestly put his signature on paper and say that the patient is permanently disabled. There are a number of diseases that lead to a fatal termination in the majority of cases but in a few other cases the victims do recover for a time. We know this is true in some cases of cancer, cirrhosis of the liver and others. Few recover but their health improves so they can work for a time. Unless a doctor is able to say they are totally and permanently disabled these people do not qualify under the act. Most of these people are permanently disabled within the meaning of the regulations, in the final result, but can any doctor say at the beginning they are permanently disabled under the act?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
On clause 1-Agreements with provinces.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, my officials are entering the chamber. I shall be happy to reply to some of the questions asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East at that time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Perhaps we could finish singing "O Canada" in the meantime.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, as you could notice the slight disturbance in the gallery when someone attempted to sing aloud "O Canada", may I say it was not necessary for the individual to have made that attempt because we in this chamber are attempting to carry on the business of this nation and that kind of interruption from the gallery is not required.
Disabled Persons Act
The hon. member for Welland in greater detail has raised a question I have raised twice concerning the difficulty of qualifying for the disability pension. Would the minister offer some explanation of the basis upon which decisions are made and tell us whether some liberalization will take place under the regulations?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Welland that there will always be problems. I do not know how they can possibly be avoided. As minister I have received many letters in this respect indicating what might seem to be inequities; I have suggested re-examinations and so on. As I mentioned earlier, we do have the doctors who are conducting the examinations in these cases come to Ottawa fairly frequently, the last time having been May, 1961, in an endeavour to have uniformity of approach on this matter.


Chesley William Carter: May I interrupt the minister there? Does he mean the doctors who are actually examining the applicants or those who are sitting on the provincial boards?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The doctors on the provincial boards.


William Hector McMillan: I should like to ask the minister a question, and I do not mean to embarrass him. Are any of their findings or decisions sent to medical men throughout the country? Are they published in any medical journal?


Jay Waldo Monteith: As I understand the situation, Mr. Chairman, the individual gets an application form and takes it to his personal doctor. Then the application is sent to the board of doctors. If they want more information or if the application does not seem to be sufficiently explicit, it is sent back or they can get outside advice, and if there is a difference of opinion there can be adjudication on the matter.


Harold Edward Winch: Do I understand from what the minister has said that there is an adjudicating board or a board of referees? Will the minister give us information on that?


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is called a medical review board and there is one in each province. As I have mentioned, the individual's personal physician fills out the medical form and sends it in to the medical review board. If they are not satisfied, if they feel that there is not sufficient information, they can send back for more information. If in the end there is a difference of opinion between the review board and the individual's own practitioner, there can be adjudication on that matter.

Disabled Persons Act


Harold Edward Winch: Who makes up the adjudication board?


Jay Waldo Monteith: A federal doctor, a provincial doctor and a third one appointed by the province.


Harold Edward Winch: Would the minister be good enough to supply me with a copy of the now agreed upon regulations with respect to what constitutes permanent disability? I have never seen them.


Mr. Mandziuk:: Mr. Chairman, to follow up this matter, I should like to address this question to the minister for purposes of verification. Is it not a fact that an investigator is usually sent to the home of the applicant, that such investigator is not always a medical man and that the impression which the applicant makes on the investigator is a factor? There are a few more points I should like to raise for the consideration of the minister. Is the same yardstick used in every case in measuring disability? Is the applicant's intellectual and academic background as well as his physical condition taken into consideration?
Hon. members will admit that a physically handicapped man with professional training may well be able to make a living whereas a man with no education at all and the same physical incapacity cannot make a living. It is the general understanding throughout the country that this assistance is given to those persons who cannot earn a living. I know of several instances where the intelligence quotient of the applicant does not fit him for retraining or technical training of any kind. His physical condition is such that he can put his clothes on and hobble outside the house. He is considered by the investigator as able to make a living but the man cannot. If he had professional training or academic education I am sure he could because from his waist up he is absolutely O.K. Are we using the same yardstick in all cases, just physical capacity and that is all? If that is the case, I do not think it is fair.
I also do not think it is fair that we send investigators who are not always medical men to the homes of these applicants. Probably it is difficult to get medical men to take on this job, but these investigators do not always make a good impression on the applicant. They want to see whether he can walk or hop or put his shirt on and take it off.
I think all these things have got to be taken into consideration if assistance is to be given to persons who are disabled from earning their living. Mental, academic, social and other factors should all be taken into consideration.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might read the definition from the regulations. It is in these words:
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.
I might repeat what I said about the makeup of the board of review in a province. There is a medical man appointed by the province and a medical man appointed by the federal government. If these two cannot agree on their finding, between them they arrange to appoint a third as an adjudicator.
The hon. member mentioned the possibility of an investigator not being a medical man. My understanding is that these investigators who visit applicants in their homes are never medical men. There are two reports. There is a medical report and a social report, I suppose one might call it. The new Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act passed at the last session of parliament makes provision for rehabilitation in some instances at least under the Department of Labour. I would suggest that possibly an attempt be made to have the provincial rehabilitation co-ordinator see if there is anything that can be done in this regard.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to say that I am quite happy to have heard the minister read out the regulations. In view of those regulations I cannot, for the life of me, understand why so many people have been turned down on the grounds they were not permanently disabled. Obviously, the regulations cover psychological and physiological disablement. In view of certain cases in British Columbia that I have in mind, this amazes me. I thank the minister for the information.
I am interested to know that the medical examination is made by medical men appointed by the province and by the federal government. I think I heard the minister correctly when he said that if they cannot agree then, an adjudicator is appointed by the two.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is right.


Harold Edward Winch: This procedure strikes me as being rather unusual. Here, we have an appointee of the province and an appointee of the federal government, and they appoint the adjudicator. I ask the minister if it is not possible to work out what might be a more impartial examination or review board. It is rather extraordinary, in my opinion, to have the people who cannot reach agreement expected to agree on the adjudicator. I am

asking the minister if any thought has been given to trying to place the adjudicator-even if it is only on the surface, I think it is important in principle-on an impartial basis.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am told that our experience in this respect has been satisfactory, but I would be glad to look into the matter.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: In my opinion these investigators, not being qualified medical practitioners, are not qualified to judge whether or not an applicant is physically incapacitated. I have heard complaints on that score. It is true that the individual applicant is examined by his own doctor and then comes before a medical board. However, the minister mentioned this social investigator. I do not know what is meant by "social investigator". Perhaps this is supposed to be a social call. I know from experience that these ordinary investigators do not know beans about a man's physical incapacity. I think the only person who is qualified to make a decision is the medical practitioner.
I will admit that the applicant's own doctor may be biased in his favour. The minister also mentioned the rehabilitation of these people. I have in mind, Mr. Chairman, a middle aged man who has been examined by representatives of the health department and the labour department with a view to giving him some training. It has been found that he is unable, because of his physical incapacity and his mental rating, to take advantage of this rehabilitation training. However, when he applies for a pension as a disabled person, he is rejected because they say he is not totally disabled. I think this sort of thing needs clarification. I am wondering, too, whether or not these regulations are uniform in all the provinces.


Jay Waldo Monteith: If I might mention first of all these regulations, I would say they are certainly uniform in all provinces. I do not believe the hon. member for Marquette was serious when he wondered whether or not this was a social call. I should like to just outline the procedure again, probably a little more specifically.
There is a medical report which is prepared by the applicant's own physician. This goes to the board in the province and the provincial board may then call in a specialist for further information. They may call for a special examination to determine just what the position of this particular applicant is. There is also, of course, the means test and this is where the social worker makes his report.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Now, I understand.
26207-1-47i
Disabled Persons Act


Jay Waldo Monteith: There are two reports, actually.


Chesley William Carter: Will the minister say what purpose the social report serves? Why is it necessary to have the investigator at all?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, because there must be an investigation for the means test. We simply make a check in this regard, as we do in connection with unemployment assistance.


Mr. Regnier:: I should like to support the hon. member for Marquette. I know that at one time in Manitoba it was said that anyone who could put on his own clothes was not eligible for a pension. A man who could move around without being helped in the house or could do some baby sitting was disqualified from the pension. I know the regulations say that if a person is severely limited in his ability to earn a living, he can qualify. However, there is too much scope left to the provinces in the administration of this measure. I do not believe the medical people who look after these cases are properly advised as to their duties. I think the regulations should be more clearly defined so that the doctor would know exactly to what the applicant is entitled.
I feel this measure is too restrictive when a man who can put on his own clothes but cannot do anything else is disqualified from a pension. It seems to me that in the province of Manitoba you would need to be in a wheelchair before you could qualify. Perhaps this situation is changed now, but for a long time there was no hope for an applicant qualifying if he could walk around unaided. I should like to have the provincial authorities instructed as to what those words the minister mentioned mean, so that the applicants will receive fairer treatment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to support the remarks made by the previous speaker with regard to the administration of the regulations covering disabled persons. I think that with respect to this social security legislation there is more complaint about the administration of the regulations under this act than under the previous acts we have been discussing. I know of a case of a young chap who is mentally incapable on occasions, yet he can work for two or three days. Then, suddenly something happens. In one case, this chap was helping to tar a roof and he ended up by dumping the tar on his fellow employees. However, he has not been able to qualify for a pension. I know of another case where a man was severely disabled and can occasionally get a temporary job for one or two days.

Disabled Persons Act
I think the remarks of the previous speaker went to the heart of the situation. There is, shall I say, a different interpretation within the various provinces as to what or who is a disabled person. The minister should give a more precise definition of the term "disabled" because I am positive, from contact with various cases in my own constituency, that cases intended to be covered by this legislation are not now covered by the interpretation given by the provincial authority.
(Translation):


Mr. English:: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Minister of National Health and Welfare for the particular interest he takes in the invalid persons of this country.
However, as hon. members who preceded me have said, I am still wondering if our invalids can really benefit by that legislation.
First of all, we should understand the definition of the word "invalid". I believe an invalid to be a person who, because of some disability, deficiency, or illness, is unable to earn his living.
At this time, in my own riding, as well as in those of several of my colleagues, when an invalid submits an application with a view to obtaining a pension, an inspector calls on him and makes a report. Later, a local physician also submits a report, which is then considered by a committee of two doctors, one federally and the other provincially appointed.
I really wonder what a physician can decide when he does not see the patient. As a matter of fact, if I were ill tomorrow, and trying to undergo treatment by correspondence, what would be the results?
Now, I think that we should have, in each province, and in each riding, a specially appointed physician to meet this class of our society which suffers more than any other, and which needs the help provided by this beneficial legislation.
Such a course would enable us to judge if such and such a person should benefit by a pension under the disabled persons legislation. I cannot understand why the federal and provincial governments should pay a physician residing, for instance, in Quebec, to judge the case of a patient living 500 miles away, for instance people who live in Gaspe and are asking for a pension.
I believe we should follow the practice applied in the case of blind applicants, where the physicians go down to the constituencies to examine people asking for a pension under

the Blind Persons Act. To my mind, it would be preferable for physicians to go and see the disabled persons in order to help them benefit by the beneficial legislation passed by this government.
(Text):


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is interesting to note that this problem is not confined to any one part of the country. Not too long ago a case was brought to my attention of a person who had applied for a disability pension and who had been recommended for it by his doctor and the medical board. However, when the investigator went to the man's house he was in his garden and the mere fact that he was in the garden seemingly disqualified him, notwithstanding the fact that he had a very serious heart disability. Certainly it does not seem to me that being in his garden for a little pleasure in the mornings should be construed as capability for work.
I agree with the hon. gentlemen who have taken a stand that the mere fact a man can walk, or go out in his garden and enjoy himself, should not disqualify him from receiving a pension. I believe the investigators should be very carefully chosen so that they may not arrive at a decision prejudicial to the views of the learned medical profession.


Jay Waldo Monteith: May I just mention one point, that unemployable disabled persons may also be assisted under the Unemployment Assistance Act.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I think we are misled to some extent by the title of this bill which says it is an act to amend the Disabled Persons Act. That seems to suggest it applies to all sorts of disabled persons who are not able to earn a living, but actually the bill applies only to that group who are totally and permanently disabled. An applicant must not just be disabled, he must be totally and permanently disabled.
This morning I raised two questions when we were discussing the resolution. The minister has replied to one, which was elaborated on by my hon. friend from Welland (Mr, McMillan) this afternoon, but he has not replied to the other which has to do with the qualification of having to be totally and permanently disabled. If we are passing this legislation to meet the need of those who are totally disabled then that is one thing. They certainly need the assistance which this legislation is intended to provide, but why an applicant has to be permanently disabled in order to qualify is more than I can understand.
As I pointed out this morning it is very difficult for any medical practitioner or specialist to say that a condition is permanent. New cures and new drugs are being invented

almost every hour of the day, and what is a permanent disability condition today may be cured tomorrow.
If a person is totally disabled for a period of time, say six months or 12 months, his need has been established and certainly that should qualify him for the benefits which this act is intended to provide. I do not see why we should not scrap this idea of permanent disability and instead make the qualification a period of total disability for six months, eight months, or 12 months, with provision to review the cases periodically. Has any consideration been given to that suggestion?


Jay Waldo Monteith: As I understand it, this act when originally proposed was designed for that very purpose, to take care of the permanently and totally disabled. Then it was found that there were certain classes of people who were in hardship and, as a consequence, the ceiling on unemployment assistance under which the federal government would participate with the provinces was lifted as of January 1, 1958. I am sure the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo will remember that. This has allowed people in that particular category to participate in unemployment assistance, in which the federal government participates to the extent of 50 per cent.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, I realize this is a difficult act to administer, but I want to emphasize that there is confusion in the minds of medical men in this country as to who might come under it and receive a pension. I think there should be better dissemination of information concerning decisions reached by the board. I have had considerable experience in this matter in the past and I have come in contact with very few cases where I could say these people did or did not come under the act and were or were not eligible for pension.
I could certainly say they were eligible if they were crippled with arthritis, for example; but the average medical man gets comparatively few cases of this nature. He fills out the form and sends it in. He probably knows whether or not a particular person receives a pension, but one year he might recommend a patient for a pension and it might be refused, and the next year another doctor might fill out a form for that patient and he will get the pension.
I think there should be some definite laws laid down under which medical men will have some idea, when they fill out these forms, whether the applicant will receive a pension. The example comes to mind of somebody in need who has incurable cancer. Some cancer cases last one, two, three, four or five years,
Disabled Persons Act
but if it were a case of incurable cancer could the minister tell me how soon that particular applicant would qualify under this act?


Jay Waldo Monteith: In the case of incurable cancer it would of course depend upon the medical report.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I want to press my question a little further. I do not consider the answer the minister gave is at all satisfactory, because he says, "Oh, well-".


Jay Waldo Monteith: What is your question? Pin it down.


Chesley William Carter: My question is, why do we insist upon keeping the permanent qualification, because a person who is totally disabled may not be permanently disabled; a person who is permanently disabled may not be totally disabled. But when the minister comes to grips with this question, all he says is, "If you do not qualify under this, you can always get something under the Unemployment Assistance Act."
That is not what we are talking about; we are talking about this act which is intended to benefit a certain group of people under certain conditions. We are not talking about the Unemployment Assistance Act. I know a person can get some assistance if he is out of work and unemployable, but with a person who has a very severe heart condition it will take a good deal of time, perhaps two or three years of waiting, before somebody finally decides he is totally and permanently disabled. I presume that in the meantime he receives assistance under the Unemployment Assistance Act because he cannot work, but somebody eventually decides he is totally disabled and comes under this act.
Where do you draw the line? What is the difference between when he qualifies under this act and when he was refused qualification previously and had to come under the Unemployment Assistance Act? I think the two acts overlap in a confusing way. If we are going to legislate for certain groups, let us legislate for certain groups and have a clear cut definition as to who is entitled to benefit under one piece of legislation and who is entitled to benefit under another.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I fully realize all the inadequacies of these pieces of Liberal legislation. I have been thinking that for some time and that is the reason why I requested that a national welfare council be set up.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is the minister not capable of
independent thought himself?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I hope to turn many of these subjects over to the national welfare council for consideration and advice.

Civilian War Pensions


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Why don't you do something about them yourself?
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the house; agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why not now?


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is because their own legislation was inadequate.



CIVILIAN WAR PENSIONS


Gordon Minto Churchill: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act to permit the payment of allowances, similar to those provided for veterans and their dependants under the War Veterans Allowance Act. 1952, to surviving former members and to certain dependants of deceased members of a number of civilian groups of Canadians who made outstanding voluntary contributions to the war effort during world war I and world war II under difficult and dangerous conditions.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Martineau in the chair.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of bringing forward this measure is that it contains certain amendments which will remove anomalies that have persisted for a number of years, about which a great many hon. members of the present parliament and earlier parliaments have spoken. It has therefore seemed advisable to clear away some of these things which require attention and recognize certain groups which served during warfare under difficult and dangerous conditions but which have not received the same attention as veterans.
The difficulty over the years has been with regard to the definition of the word "veteran", which we are not changing in the amendments; but because of the definition of the word "veteran" people who were not enlisted and in uniform in the various categories which I will mention shortly have not been eligible for some of the benefits under the veterans charter. The intention of the amendments about to be proposed is to bring these categories, not under the War Veterans
[Mr. Monteith (Perth) .1
Allowance Act but to make available to them the assistance that is provided to veterans under that act. I have a prepared statement which I think will put on the record as it summarizes rather carefully the various amendments which we have in mind.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Do you have an extra copy?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act was passed in 1946 to provide pensions to members of a number of civilian groups who became disabled while furthering the national war effort and to the dependants of those who lost their lives as a direct result of enemy action. The word "allowances" in the title has so far referred to detention allowances which were paid to merchant seamen if they were detained or imprisoned by another country. The allowances compensated for the loss of wages suffered because of detention. The act as it is at present is administered by the Canadian pension commission.
The amendment proposed by the bill is to add a new section to the act to permit the payment of allowances in amounts similar to war veterans allowances and under similar conditions of financial need or disability. The contribution of the members of these groups to the war effort was praiseworthy and in many instances brought sacrifices in addition to disabilities involving financial loss and family hardship through separation and other strains as well as many discomforts and privations. It thus seems appropriate that where these civilians are unable to follow a reasonably gainful occupation and have very limited resources, they should be assisted in order that they may enjoy a modest but secure income as a token of the national appreciation of their contribution to the war effort.
Although it is necessary to speak of them using the term "civilians" rather than "veterans", that is not because those of us who are veterans, in addition to others, do not recognize that their contribution was in many instances greater than that which we ourselves made during wartime. I would refer particularly to the men in the merchant marine who have been recognized in many other ways but who have not heretofore been given the privileges which pertain to veterans under the War Veterans Allowance Act. I have stated before in this house how much we owe to these men and again I pay a tribute to the men of the merchant marine in particular, not singling them out especially from the other groups which will be mentioned later, but referring to them because I have always had a great admiration for the merchant marine. These men undertook, voluntarily, jobs for which I, for one, might have volunteered only under extremely pressing

circumstances; I have often thought that if I had been asked during wartime to take a job as a merchant seaman I would have paused to think about it on more than one occasion. Each service sometimes wonders how the other service is managed in wartime, and as just an ordinary soldier I often wondered about the men of the merchant marine.
The groups to whom it is proposed that allowances be made available are:
1.	World war I. The Canadian merchant marine and those Canadians who served in the merchant services of the allies.
There were 39 merchant ships of Canadian registry during world war I, and a number of Newfoundland registry. A small number of Canadians served in British and allied merchant shipping. It is estimated that there were about 5,000 merchant seamen who served in all these ships. Most seamen served in dangerous waters. We cannot determine accurately the number of these who survive, but a careful estimate indicates that only a few hundred seamen and widows are now alive.
The annual cost is estimated at about $105,000. As this group is now decreasing because of advancing age the cost will drop quickly.
We are hopeful that although official records of service will in most cases be nonexistent, proofs of service at sea will be available through the discharge books of the seamen, authorization for medals or other contemporary records.
2.	World war II. The Canadian merchant marine and those Canadians who served with Canada's allies on certified non-Canadian ships.
There were 194 merchant ships of Canadian registry and a number of Newfoundland registry. Canadian seamen served in many certified non-Canadian ships including a number who served under an agreement with the British admiralty, known as a T-124 agreement which applied tq< service on such ships as armed merchant cruisers and rescue tugs. From the records of these world war II groups there should be little difficulty in establishing proof of service. It is estimated that there are now about 20,000 survivors of all these groups including widows and orphan children and that about 400 would now qualify for allowances on the basis of service eligibility consisting of at least six months spent at sea during the war including at least one voyage through dangerous waters, or the award of a pension or a detention allowance under this act.
The estimated present annual cost of allowances to this group is $500,000.
Civilian War Pensions
3.	World war II. Corps of (civilian) Canadian firefighters for service in the United Kingdom.
This corps was organized in Canada for service in Britain to assist the national fire service in combating fires caused by enemy air raids. Members were required to serve for the duration of the war or as long thereafter as necessary. Of the 422 firefighters who enrolled in the corps, 408 served in Britain and had all arrived there by December, 1942. The average length of service for those who proceeded overseas was two years and nine months. Those who served for at least six months in Britain during the hostilities in Europe received the defence of Britain medal. Complete service records of this corps are available. It is proposed that service eligibility for allowances will require a continuous period of at least six months spent in Britain prior to May 9, 1945 or the award of a pension under this act, and that the widows and orphan children of deceased members who saw such service be also eligible.
The estimated annual cost is $12,000.
4.	World war I. Voluntary aid detachment.
This detachment was selected by the St.
John Ambulance Brigade and sent to Britain to assist the Women's V.A.D. department of the British Red Cross. They served in imperial hospitals in Britain and on the continent, having proceeded overseas between September 1916 and September 1918. Of the total of 360 who proceeded overseas 54, including 12 from Newfoundland, served on the continent of Europe and received the Victory Medal and the General Service Medal. Nominal rolls are available. The bill provides that members of this detachment and the orphan children of deceased members be eligible for allowances provided that before November 12, 1918 they served on the continent or at least 365 days in Britain including sailing time from Canada and on return during the period of hostilities or, alternatively, were pensioned under this act.
5.	World war II. Overseas welfare workers.
This was a group of women who served
overseas under the auspices of the Canadian Red Cross society, the St. John ambulance brigade and the Scottish ministry of health. They served in various capacities such as nursing aids, ambulance drivers and welfare workers. Some served as orthopaedic nurses with the Scottish ministry of health. The first women left Canada in January, 1943. The majority served in Britain only although some served in the Mediterranean theatre and others in France and Belgium. Virtually complete records are available. There were 861 workers who left Canada for service
740	HOUSE OF
Civilian War Pensions
overseas. It is proposed that, as these workers served in Britain and on the continent under hazardous conditions, they and the orphan children of deceased workers, be eligible for allowances provided they served overseas for a continuous period of at least six months or are pensioned under this act. The annual cost would be very small.
6.	World war II. Canadian civilian air crew of the Royal Air Force transport command.
These men were first employed in 1940 as civilians to fly bombers and other aircraft across the Atlantic. In 1941 the organization was taken over by the R.A.F. transport command. At the conclusion of hostilities there were 269 Canadian survivors of this group. Complete records are available. The members suffered a fatal casualty rate of 20 per cent. It is proposed that those who served as air crew for at least six months during the war and who made at least one ocean crossing and the widows and orphan children of deceased members be eligible for allowances. The annual cost would be very small.
7.	World war II. Newfoundland overseas forestry unit.
This group was recruited in Newfoundland at the request of the British government. The earlier contracts were for six months only but subsequent contracts were for the duration of the war. They were engaged in the cutting of pit props for coal mines, an activity vital to the war economy. They served mostly in Scotland. Of the total of 3,680 who went overseas about 3,100 remained as civilians as some of the first group joined the forces. The group suffered about 30 fatal accidents and 335 were repatriated on medical grounds. Records are virtually complete. It is proposed that the members of this unit who contracted to serve with the unit for the duration of the war and who served in Britain for at least six months and the widows and orphan children of deceased members with this service be eligible for allowances. The present annual cost is estimated at $60,000.
The above proposals to permit the payment of allowances to the survivors and surviving dependants of the members of the above groups are contained in a new part to be added to this act as part XI. Parts I to X will, as before, continue to be adjudicated and administered by the Canadian pension commission. The adjudication and the administrative duties brought about by the new part XI will become the responsibility of the war veterans allowance board and the W.V.A. district authorities. The authority for these duties is now contained in the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the minister and the government for introducing this resolution. It states a principle with which we are in full accord and which we heartily endorse. For some time we in this party have advocated that pensions be given to members of the merchant navy, the rescue tug service commonly known as the T-124 group, the firefighters and members of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit. We are glad to see that the valuable services rendered to our country by these and other groups in two world wars are now being recognized.
I said we fully support the principle of this resolution but we have no way of knowing how widely the principle will be applied until we see the bill. Until the legislation is before us we cannot determine for ourselves the conditions under which these people will become eligible for pensions nor will we be in a position to determine its actual usefulness.
Judging from the figure given by the minister with respect to the cost of pensions for the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit it seems to me the conditions are going to be very stringent indeed. If the cost is going to be only $60,000 it may be calculated that at $1,000 for each individual the government does not expect more than 60 members of the unit to qualify this year.
Although I endorse the principle I must place on record my personal disappointment at the vehicle chosen by the government for applying the principle. I had hoped that the method adopted would have been by amending the veterans charter so that these groups could be accorded the same treatment we accord other veterans. It seems to me it would have been a very simple matter to amend the definition of a veteran in such a way that these groups could be included. The fact that this has not been done amounts to denying these people the status of veterans. While we are assisting them in one breath, in the next breath we are saying that we do not regard them as veterans.
I appreciate what the minister said about the merchant navy. He knows I share the admiration he expressed for the services they rendered during the war. Their services were just as vital and necessary to the winning of the war as those rendered by any other branch of the armed services. Without the merchant navy there would have been no food for our troops or our allies in Britain, no fuel to run our tanks and motor vehicles, no ammunition and no arms. If you take that into consideration you will conclude we could not have won the war without the contribution of the merchant navy.
The minister said the amendments envisaged payment to these groups somewhat along

the lines of the war veterans allowance. That allowance is paid to veterans on reaching age 60 without the requirement of a medical examination. We call it the burnt out pension. It is awarded on the assumption- whether true or false I am not prepared to say-that the hardships undergone by those men in carrying out their duties had an effect on their physical condition that would not have been experienced had they remained in civilian life and that served to pre-age them by ten years. If that is true with respect to the armed services, I am sure it is doubly true with respect to members of the merchant navy.
The minister said he would not like to be in the position of a merchant seaman, and I would not either, sitting on a fuel tanker which might be blown up and catch fire at any minute in mid-Atlantic, or sitting on a munition ship which would need only one shell to blow everyone to kingdom come, being cramped in small quarters with people suffering from tuberculosis and other ailments or floating about in the ocean for hours on end waiting to be picked up. Certainly if any conditions would create preaging I would think that those I have just mentioned would lead to that result.
We are glad to see that these benefits are being extended to the other groups mentioned by the minister. I will not take the time to list them all. We acknowledge their services too, but what disturbs me is that the government, having chosen to go so far, has stopped short of going just a little bit farther and granting to these people the status of veterans. What we see here is that all a person needs to do to be a veteran is to put on a uniform. I have known people who put on a uniform, landed in France, spent a day or two there, broke a leg and were transported back to blighty. Such a man is a veteran though he never got into action. He never got near the front line but he is a veteran. On the other hand, the poor merchant navy man who was torpedoed, floated for hours in the ocean and was lucky to escape with his life is not a veteran. I think this omission is going to be a severe disappointment to the members of the merchant navy.
I see that my time is running out and I will merely pass over the other groups by saying that I welcome this recognition of their services because I want to take a minute or two to refer to the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit. In respect of this group this is special legislation because it will not apply to any other foresters or any other forestry unit except those in Newfoundland, and in Newfoundland only to those who served in world war II.
Civilian War Pensions
Here again we have identical conditions involving the summoning to service of these people by the British government, a vital service so important that they were frozen in their occupation and not allowed to join the other services even though many of them wished to do so. In addition to their forestry service, some of them served in the home guard in the British Isles and manned guns and performed other defence duties in Britain.
But the thing I want to point out to the minister about this legislation is that it is drawing a distinction between Newfoundland forestry units who served in world war I and those who served in world war II, because the Newfoundland foresters who served in world war I are veterans. They are recognized as veterans and are receiving benefits today under the veterans charter. Yet we are saying to those who served in world war II and performed exactly identical services that they are not veterans.
What is the difference, Mr. Chairman? The only difference is that those who served in world war I wore uniforms and those who served in world war II did not because they were recruited under different conditions and in such an urgent way. At that time Newfoundland did not have responsible government but was governed by a commission with headquarters in Britain. The head of the government was really the colonial secretary in London and he laid down what was or was not to be done. If we had been a free people at that time instead of being governed by what was actually a dictatorship-it may have been a benevolent one but nevertheless it was still a dictatorship because the people had no say in their government-the Newfoundland people would have seen to it that the Newfoundland foresters of world war II were treated in exactly the same way as those who served in the same capacity in world war I.
The people of Newfoundland did not have a voice in the government of their country and it would have been a nice gesture if in bringing in this legislation the government had rectified the omission and put the foresters of world war II on exactly the same footing as those of world war I. We now have in Newfoundland two classes of foresters, those who served in world war I and are veterans and entitled to benefits under the veterans charter and those who served in world war II who are not veterans and not entitled to benefits under the charter but who are now being brought under the civilian pensions act.
That is not what I wanted, that is not what they wanted, that is not what the Canadian Legion wanted. The Legion made it very clear in its submissions to the government

Railway Act
and to the parliamentary committee on veterans affairs in 1960 and 1961 and on other occasions that it was recommending that these groups should be brought in under the War Veterans Allowance Act. Even at this late date I would ask the minister to reconsider this whole matter and try to wipe out the anomalies which he said in his opening remarks this legislation is intended to remove.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, could we call it five o'clock?


Mr. Pugh:: I should like to ask the last speaker a question. When did the foresters of Newfoundland first ask that their case be heard by brief or otherwise, and by the Legion or otherwise?


Mr. Jones:: 1949.


Chesley William Carter: I do not really know when they first asked. I know that they appeared before the parliamentary committee in 1958.


David Vaughan Pugh: You have no knowledge of anything earlier?


Chesley William Carter: No, I have no knowledge.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The hon. member for Kootenay West has called it five o'clock. It being five o'clock and in order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of Standing order 15 it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.



RAILWAY ACT


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West) moved: Railway Act
property has been removed or destroyed, or Is so greatly out of repair as to be of no value for protection as fencing.
After the abandonment of the line of railway, the railway company erected fences or barriers at each end of the abandoned right of way, but these erections have from time to time been destroyed or have fallen out of repair, and the public has used the right of way to some extent as an ordinary road for travel. As a consequence of the lack of fencing the applicants claim that they have been seriously damaged in respect of their farm which lies upon both sides of the railway right of way. They complain that trespassers and cattle get upon their property from time to time from the railway right of way and that there are no fences upon the right of way to prevent their so doing, and that under present circumstances they have suffered a great deal of damage and inconvenience in respect of their farm property and farm operations.
The application was heard in the city of Toronto on November 3, 1936, in the presence of the applicants and their counsel, and also in the presence of counsel for the railway company. At the conclusion of the hearing it was suggested that the railway company might at slight expense erect permanent barriers at each end of its abandoned line of railway where it crosses applicants' property, which would effectually stop trespassing and travel upon its former railway line in the vicinity of applicants' farm. Counsel for the railway company agreed to this suggestion and stated that the railway company would be willing to erect suitable barriers for such purpose at the above points, and would also erect and maintain proper signs or notices warning persons against trespassing and that the railway company would endeavour in any reasonable way to prosecute trespassers should the practice continue.
It is to be noted that the requirement for fencing is that the company shall erect and maintain fences upon the railway (section 274 of the Railway Act). Where abandonment of operation has been authorized and has taken place, the right of way through which the railway is operated ceases to be used for railway purposes and is held by the company, not as part of its railway qua railway company, but in the same way as land is held by private individuals, subject to any provincial or municipal laws which may be in force in the particular district.
It is to be further noted that the principal, if not the sole, reason for the fencing requirement in the Railway Act is to prevent cattle from getting upon railway lands and being killed or injured by railway operations. Where complete abandonment of a line of railway takes place, the necessity for fencing the line largely disappears, and the section does not apply. For these reasons the board, in my opinion, has no authority under the terms of the Railway Act to order the railway company to maintain fences upon the sides of its right of way under the circumstances which pertain in the present application. It is, of course, open to the applicants, if they so desire, to seek whatever remedy in respect of fencing may be available under the provisions of the provincial laws.
When it was pointed out to the applicants at the hearing that the board lacked jurisdiction to make an order such as the applicants desired, they were disposed to accept the suggestion above set out in regard to the erection of barriers by the railway company at each end of the abandoned right of way, where the same crosses the farm property of applicants. It may be that under all the circumstances it would be better to erect these barriers at the points where the right of way intersects the highways nearest to the property of the applicants. The erection of barriers at the

highway intersections might effectually put a stop to the trespassing of which the applicants complain.
An order will, therefore, be issued in the above terms providing for the erection and maintenance of the said barriers and the notices to trespassers as above mentioned.
Time is running short but at this point I would like to point out two things, first that the board did issue an order alter stating that they have no right to issue an order in a case such as this. That happened in the case of several other disputes of this nature, and it has been explained to me that these orders of the board were not intended as enforceable orders but in the nature of suggestions for the settlement of these disputes.
In one particular paragraph it states:
It is to be further noted that the principal, if not the sole, reason for the fencing requirement in the Railway Act is to prevent cattle from getting upon railway lands and being killed or injured by railway operation. Where complete abandonment of a line of railway takes place, the necessity for fencing the line largely disappears, and the section does not apply-
I wish to take issue with that statement because in subsection (5) of section 277 of the present act it is quite clearly indicated, I submit, that part of the idea of fencing is to take care of the conveniences and protect the conveniences of the farmers. Subsection (5) of section 277 reads as follows:
Where the railway is being constructed through enclosed lands, the company shall, by fencing its right of way before any existing fences are taken down or by other effective means, prevent cattle or other animals escaping from or getting upon such enclosed lands or from one enclosure to another or upon the property of the company by reason of such construction or of any act or thing done by the company, its contractors, agents or employees.
That certainly implies that fencing is not only necessary for the protection of railway property but is also necessary to prevent cattle wandering from field to field. Again, there is a section of the act which deals with weeds and another section of the act-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has now expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house consent to the hon. member finishing his sentence?


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, a number of hon. members wish to discuss this matter from the standpoint of problems in their own areas across the country, so I will give way at this time. I wish to thank the house for its co-operation.


Mr. E. J. Campbell (Lamblon-Kenl):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take advantage of this opportunity to say a few words in

support of the bill of my colleague from Middlesex West who comes from my neighbouring municipality and constituency.
This bill is intended to correct a situation which is, in my opinion also, an injustice caused in connection with the abandonment of railway rights of way. I approve and consider most commendable the purpose which is written in the bill itself. If I may quote that purpose again, it is this:
The purpose of this bill is to make legislatively certain that the board of transport commissioners has authority to order railway companies to so maintain abandoned lines of railway as to prevent damages to the rights of persons or the interest of the public.
To my mind that is a most commendable purpose. Wherever such instances of abandonment take place they are almost certain to cause difficulties and inconveniences which are not of the making of the individuals affected. Since these things are not of the making of the individuals, and in the main have not been requested by the individual property owners but have been carried out to serve the public generally, it does not seem fair that the individual should be faced with the excessive costs that are the results of such abandonments taking place.
As I said, I am a neighbouring representative of my colleague who has just spoken and I believe I am affected in about the same way in that this railway which has been abandoned in our area crosses through the territory that I have the privilege and honour to represent.
The main cause of complaint that has come to me in this regard has been in connection with fencing. A number of individual property owners have asked me to make representations to the powers that be, because they have not been able to obtain what they consider to be a fair and equitable arrangement for the maintaining of the fences that are affecting them.
There are also other matters, such as grading-which has been mentioned by my colleague-drainage, bridges and culverts, and so on. I have had occasion to intercede on behalf of these people I have mentioned and I have been told that as a result of the abandonment of these railway lines the property now falls into the same position as that of any other ratepayer adjoining these properties, as far as the law is concerned. This law, as perhaps most hon. members know, provides that wherever fencing is required the people affected have the right to go to their municipal representatives and ask them to make a fence viewer's award in a case where they cannot agree as to the relative proportions of the cost of maintaining these fences.
Railway Act
As hon. members can readily understand, a rail line requires two fences in order to protect it. In the case where a rail line cuts a farm property it is necessary to maintain two additional fences across that property in order to protect the cattle or livestock, whatever they may be, from the hazards and dangers of the railway. Where the rail line has ceased to function it means that the farmer must pay the cost of one complete fence across his property which in the first place is cut in two, and in regard to which he has no access to the back. He must maintain a fence through it in order to protect his cattle from getting out and getting into trouble. To my mind the cost involved is prohibitive for him because I presume the value of the land involved-which would only be a few acres at the most-would in some cases not be equal to the value of the fence.
I should also like to say a few words about the question of drainage. I believe that our laws, particularly in Ontario, provide that wherever one interferes with the free flow of water one automatically becomes responsible for carrying his share of the cost of taking that water to a place where it will do no damage to lands or roads. In the case where a grade is built up or a hill is cut down, it has the effect of either increasing the flow of water beyond that which nature would allow, or it has the opposite effect of cutting off the free flow of water so that it cannot be carried to a point where it will do no damage to lands or roads.
The result is that the farmer must suffer additional damage as a result of water that is artificially cut off from its natural flow. Where culverts are taken out, naturally they will erode and fill in. This will cause a natural dam because there would have been a grade built by the railway in order to build up its line to the place where it would give the best service.
I do not think I am in a position to stress any of the other things which have been mentioned and which the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) has covered very fully. I will conclude by saying that I agree with the bill and I should like to see authority vested in the board of transport commissioners so they would be able to order that lines shall be maintained where there has been an abandonment.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-7 which we are now considering most certainly has our sympathy. In principle it goes far deeper than even the actual wording of the bill. The title of the bill is an act to amend the Railway Act

Railway Act
(abandonment). The foremost principles outlined therein are to the effect that the company may abandon the operation of any line of railway with the approval of the board and upon such terms and conditions subsequent as the board from time to time may by order provide. The basic concept of the bill is that there shall be no abandonment until or unless the company has complied with any order by the board to carry out remedial measures in the way of fencing, gates, cattle-guards, weed control, drainage works, demolition and so on.
What is outlined here is certainly important. We should like to congratulate the hon. member for having introduced this bill because of the basic, underlying, important, fundamental principle which is directly and indirectly conveyed in the measure, that is, the question of the abandonment of railway lines and the effect of so doing upon the public in general, upon farmers and upon industry. That is why we feel this bill is important. I think we are too prone to forget the basis upon which the transcontinental railways of Canada were built. The primary object was to link Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific in order to develop the economy of our country. To make this possible not only were hundreds of millions of dollars granted through the medium of the federal government but other considerations were forthcoming by way of grants of land and mineral resources which over the years have amounted to billions of dollars. The idea was to open Canada for development and, in addition, to give service to the Canadian people in perpetuity because of the billions which had been granted to the companies in cash or resources.
In the last few years, however, applications have been made from time to time to the board of transport commissioners for the abandonment of lines which, in the estimation of the railway companies, can no longer be operated at a profit. That, I say, is the fundamental issue which is before us now because of this bill. It affects all Canada. It affects us in the province of British Columbia. I have particularly in mind the Kettle valley line which is a major transportation system in our province going from Vancouver through the cities of Penticton, Castlegar, Trail, Nelson and Fernie to Lethbridge. Although this line is not completely abandoned it is partly abandoned to the extent that as far as service to the public is concerned in all the cities I have named it is basically operated only for one reason and that is the convenience of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company for freight transfer and, of course, the majority stockholder in that company is the Canadian Pacific Railway. So we are facing not

only the question of abandonment but of the partial abandonment of service to the people of Canada who have contributed so much of their God-given resources and hard cash to these companies over the years. There is no question that the hon. member who moved this bill and the speaker who preceded me were completely correct in saying that now, before it is too late, steps must be taken to protect the public.
We think the introduction of this bill will serve to draw the attention of the government and of the board of transport commissioners to the need, when any application is made for the abandonment of rail lines, of consideration being given to those who have established themselves, whether on farms or in industry, for time during which to make transportation readjustments and for adequate and fair compensation for any increased costs which they may have to incur because of the abandonment of the lines. Without going into great detail I should like to say that as far as this group is concerned, we ask, in supporting this Bill No. C-7, that some thought be given by the board of transport commissioners to the public service which is being provided to our people and to the obligation which the railways owe to them because of past gifts. We ask that when any request is made for abandonment the transportation commissioners should keep in mind that agreement to abandon must be on terms providing that new types of transportation have been installed so as to maintain those whose work or service would be disrupted because of abandonment. Also, I hope the board will bear in mind the extra cost which may have to be incurred by industrialists and farmers affected by abandonment, and that in view of this extra cost the board will order compensation to be paid over whatever period of time may seem necessary. This is an important matter of vital principle which should be attended to immediately by the government and by the board of transport commissioners both for the protection of our economy and also of those who have invested their physical and mental labour or money in projects because of the railway services which previously existed. In other words, there must be a time period ordered by the board of transport commissioners during which other means of transportation may be established, and provision made for compensation to those who incur increased cost in getting their products to the markets of the world.


Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: I am pleased to give my support to this bill in the name of the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas). I am also pleased that the hon.

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) has indicated the support of his party for this measure. I think the amendment is important in view of the fact that the board of transport commissioners is being asked by the two major railways in Canada for permission to discontinue a number of branch lines which, in the opinion of the railways, have become uneconomic.
Within the past week the Canadian Federation of Agriculture presented a brief to the Prime Minister and the cabinet. They are concerned in that brief with the abandonment of railway lines in Canada. I wish to quote some comments from their brief on this subject:
However, on two major points of policy we are quite clear. The first concerns abandonment of branch lines. Conceding that there will and should be abandonment of a considerable number of branch lines over the next number of years, we would emphasize as strongly as possible that branch line abandonment, especially in the grain economy of western Canada but in many other cases also, can have severe repercussions on business using these lines and on farmers. The central need in this connection is to avoid ill-considered, overhasty, and unco-ordinated programs of branch line abandonment.
Our recommendation is that the government and board of transport commissioners should insist that before further abandonment is proceeded with a long range plan for abandonment and relocation of displaced elevator and other facilities should be developed which embraces in one plan the operations of both railways. It should insist also on a reasonable notice of perhaps five years to be given before abandonment. The government should develop, in advance of co-operating in a program of branch line abandonment, adequate policies with respect to depreciation allowances on needed new facilities, on facilities which will require to be abandoned, and where necessary for recovery of costs of investment on abandoned branches. Given such an orderly, over-all plan, adequate consultation with producers and other interested parties on the plan, and necessary subsidiary tax and compensation policies, it should be possible for constructive progress to be made with fairness to all concerned.
In the province of Ontario, the federation of agriculture has established a land acquisition committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Jack Ferguson, past president of the Ontario federation of agriculture. For a number of years this committee has been engaged in making an intensive study and survey of the effects on farm property of power lines, pipe lines, railroads and other public services. I understand this committee has gone on record as saying that action be taken similar to that recommended in the proposal of the hon. member for Middlesex West.
At the present time, the Ontario federation of agriculture along with the county branches in Lambton, Middlesex and Elgin have formed a joint committee and are or will be holding meetings or circulating petitions among those persons involved to gain their views on the abandonment of the New York Central line
Railway Act
through these three counties. I refer to the line running from St. Thomas known as the Saint Clair line. The abandonment of railway lines is always of concern to county weed inspectors and their views will also be considered.
I offer for consideration the following suggestion. After a railway line has been discontinued for a certain period of time-we might use the period of five years, for example -and the tracks removed, the land would revert to the original deed. It would then become the responsibility of the now present owner to keep it fenced and to control the weeds. In case of dispute over line fences they would then come, in this province, under the Ontario line fence act and be subject to a decision rendered by the fence viewers of the local municipality.
I personally have recollection of a railroad line in the riding of Elgin being discontinued, but of course this took place approximately 40 years ago. The line at that time was known as the London and Port Stanley Traction Company. It was an electric railway handling mainly passengers and express. I do not think the line had to discontinue by reason of competition from motor cars and trucks; rather, it was as a result of competition from a competitive electric railroad serving the same area. When the tracks were removed the people in the area were given the opportunity to remove the ballast along the right of way for use in building up their own roadways or drives. Eventually the land reverted to the original owners and in a few years time the right of way was levelled and became once again productive, agricultural land. Much of this line ran along what is now No. 4 highway. The Ontario department of highways took over the abandoned line when the highway was widened.
In my estimation Bill No. 7 as introduced by the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) is very timely. I hope it receives not only favourable consideration by hon. members of this house but, as well, support from the cabinet and the board of transport commissioners.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned by the previous speaker in his closing remarks this bill is certainly timely, particularly in relation to my constituency. A number of branch lines have been abandoned in the last 25 years and the people in my area are concerned over the fact that we might again be faced with further rail line abandonment. In fact the railroads are now applying for permission to abandon a short stretch of railway in the area. Bill No. C-7 is therefore of vital interest to my constituency.

Railway Act
Under present conditions a railway must apply for permission to abandon a line but the board of transport commissioners imposes no qualifications with respect to abandonment. In other words, once permission is granted the railway may remove itself from the picture as rapidly as it can, leaving behind as little mess as possible, but with no regard for the people affected. The railways are free to take that course if they wish.
When it is found necessary to abandon a line considerable hardship is imposed on the owners of property located along the railway and particularly property owners such as the owners of small businesses in communities or small towns. It is true that some businesses are not today patronizing the railways as much as they should be. However, the loss of a railway greatly affects a small community.
Elevator companies are also vastly affected by rail line abandonment. In the last five or six years elevator companies have taken the position of stating that the larger the elevator, the cheaper costs of operating the elevator and handling grain. They have produced statistics showing that an elevator with a capacity of 100,000 bushels can handle grain at half the cost of an elevator with a capacity of 25,000 or 30,000 bushels. This may be true, but certainly if a rail line is abandoned you have an elevator left which is merely salvage. As soon as it was empty I imagine it would be torn down. The elevator companies stand to lose a considerable amount in any abandonment of a rail line, but I am not really concerned about the position of the elevator companies.
The aspect at which I think the board of transport commissioners should take a serious look is the greater hardship and difficulty people will have in getting their products to market and the losses people will suffer because of property devaluation. Many persons have built homes in these small towns in the hope that the towns will continue to flourish and that they will be able to spend the rest of their days there; but they find that these towns are slowly fading away. If the railway line is abandoned and the tracks are pulled up, then sooner or later businesses will leave these towns and the people will either have to move to another town or continue to live in a ghost town.
This is the part of the problem that concerns me, and I think that the railways should bear some responsibility in this regard. As the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) mentioned, this bill should serve to bring this problem to the attention of the cabinet and the board of transport commissioners. I think it should also serve to bring the problem to the forefront so far as the

railway companies are concerned and in my view they should give the whole matter very serious consideration because in western Canada particularly towns sprung up as a result of the urging of the railway companies.
The railway companies bought land and laid out town sites. In many cases they sold lots to businessmen who wanted to establish businesses. They encouraged men to invest their life savings in these towns along the railway lines, and if these lines are abandoned the railway should share some responsibility for the loss these people will suffer and the greater hardships that farmers, mines and so on will face in getting their products to market.
When one of the railways applies to the board of transport commissioners for permission to abandon a railway line, certainly the board must look into the problem to ascertain how many people are affected, how much business is affected, how grain handling facilities will be affected and how much of a loss the railway is suffering in its operation of the line. Then the board must weigh the one against the other. When the board is making its very thorough investigation with regard to the loss suffered by the railway and the potential loss to business people, farmers, tradesmen and workers in the area, surely it should not be too much to expect it to impose regulations on the railway as to how the abandonment should take place and who should be compensated for what. This only seems right, and perhaps in most cases the board would do this; but as I understand the act the railways could not be forced to follow such policy or regulations outlined by the board of transport commissioners.
I know that a great deal of hardship could be experienced as a result of the abandonment of certain rail lines. It would cause workers who derive their livelihood from the railways to change their occupation. It is a common statement for the railways to make that they will make room for such people elsewhere in the system, but we are all aware of the bumping that takes place on the railways and somebody down the line gets bumped out of a job. This is the sort of thing that could happen to people actually concerned in the operating of the railway lines. Then there are the people whose property will perhaps go right down to nil in value because of the loss of the railway line passing their property. I think this will be the actual result in the case of a great many towns but it will take a number of years for it to happen. I am certain that will be the result in many small places.
Very few small places in western Canada will continue to exist without a railway line running through them. Farmers will have to

haul grain a greater distance to another elevator on another track so that the grain can be moved to the lakehead or to the west coast for shipment. This will undoubtedly mean greater cost which will have to be borne by the farmer who has to get his grain to market. It is quite clear that the board has to rule on abandonment and I think it should also rule on how abandonment will take place and how compensation will be paid. Certainly the railways should accept their responsibility and realize that they owe some compensation to those people who suffer by reason of the abandonment of a rail line.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire whether on Monday we will go back to the speech from the throne and, if not, what the business for that day and subsequent days will be?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we will carry on with legislation on Monday. The first item will be third reading of Bill No. C-62 dealing with amendments to the Disabled Persons Act. The second item will be the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport concerning a railway line at Whitecourt, Alberta; third, second reading of Bill No. C-48, respecting a railway line at Chisel lake, Manitoba; fourth, the resolution in the name of the Minister of
Business of the House
Transport which appears in Votes and Proceedings for yesterday and deals with a proposed railway line in the Gaspe peninsula.
If we can finish these items we will then carry on with the four items I have had on the order paper dealing with veterans affairs, starting off with the resolution we have been discussing today and followed by the resolution dealing with the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act and then Bill No. C-36 and Bill No. C-37.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the house leader that we gave an undertaking to expedite one of the measures on the order paper. I think it is the second or perhaps the first one mentioned by the house leader a moment ago, the first railway measure. We gave that undertaking provided the house would then go back to the debate on the speech from the throne; but in the light of the announcement which the house leader has made we may now have to reconsider that position.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Expediting any of the business I have announced would be met with pleasure on this side of the house and we could then get back to the speech from the throne.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 12, 1962