Mr. LADNER:
But supposing the wife
has been an invalid for ten years and was able to contribute nothing -in services or otherwise; will not the minister agree that the pension authorities Would then have a prior claim and take the house?
Mr. CANNON:
There is no doubt about
that. In discussing legislation it is always easy to point out extreme cases which are exceptional in their nature and very few in number, but this law applies not to these exceptional cases but to all cases. My hon. friend will admit that general legislation is t-o meet general oases and that special bills are introduced to meet exceptional cases. If we in this House are to consider general legislation to meet extreme and exceptional oases as indicated by my hon. friend the task of legislation becomes impossible and beyond the wit -of humanity. These extreme -cases are cases of hardship, but such things exist under any law. Last night, for instance, the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) pointed out exceptional cases of certain soldiers, which goes to show that with all the legislation introduced in parliament during the last six or eight years to meet the needs of soldiers, everything has not been done to meet all the oases which should come within the scope of that legislation. Again I say that we are now simply in the position we find ourselves in dealing with legislation of any kind. General legislation along general lines can very seldom, and as a matter of fact I may say never, include every case which might come to the conception of any member of this House. This is an extreme case pointed out by my hon. friend, it is a case of hardship but so long as we legislate generally we cannot legislate especially and particularly.
Mr. LADNER:
Why not include a
provision giving some discretion to the 32649-57
pension authority to exempt certain houses under these -circumstances?
Mr. CANNON:
There is a good deal in
the suggestion of my hon. friend and evidently the author of this bill thought of that. In the last lines of subsection 3 of section 9 great latitude is given, and if I am not mistaken power is also given under section 10 to the governor in council to make certain regulations. I have no doubt that when these regulations are drawn up the governor in council will give to the authority dealing with these cases the necessary discretion to deal with them.
Mr. BOYS:
As a matter of information I
should like to ask the Solicitor General how it is proposed to transfer an interest in a dwelling house.
Mr. CANNON:
I think the only way to
transfer an interest in a dwelling house is to sell it.
Mr. BOYS:
I do not believe the minister understands me to mean that. It cannot be done. I do not want to be too critical, but at the same time I suppose we should have things so they can be carried out. You can transfer land and chattel property by a bill of sale, but how to transfer an interest in a dwelling house is a new proposition, under the law of this province.
Mr. CANNON:
This bill was drawn up by the parliamentary counsel, Colonel Biggar, who has given great thought to all of these clauses, and I may say without fear of contradiction that the ability of Colonel Biggar is fully recognized by every member of this committee. Furthermore as I stated last night, all these Clauses offer difficulties of execution; this law will certainly offer a number of su-ch difficulties and as my friend will fully realize, I am not prepared to give a ready answer to all the objections which might occur to the minds of legal members of this committee.
Mr. BOYS:
Supposing in the province of
Quebec you wanted to transfer an interest in a dwelling house. How would you do it? I suppose you could sell the land -on which it stands, but I think there should be a change made here in order to have things as they should be. As this is now worded it is impossible to make that transfer. You can transfer the land on which the house rests, but you -cannot transfer your interest in the house.
Mr. CANNON:
My hon. friend will admit that as a rule the owner of a house owns the land on which it stands. No man with ordinary common sense will consfruct a house on
Old Age Pensions
land that does not belong to him. If my hon. friend wants to point out difficult cases, it would be easy for him to point out the case of a man who erected a house on another man's property, with the consent of the other man. Again I must say that these are exceptional cases. In my own province we have the system of what we call emphyteutic leases, by which a man can lease his property for 99 years or for 999 years, and the lessee can build a house on that property. Strictly speaking he does not own the land; he has only a lease. When the lease terminates, the house remains on the property. These are very exceptional cases, and I do not think at this stage we need bother about them. The provinces will have the machinery in hand, and I have no doubt that these exceptional cases will be met as they should.
Again I repeat that it is very easy for any lawyer in this House to bring forward these cases that may seem to be difficult to meet. I may say in justice to my hon. friend that if I were sitting on that side instead of sitting on this side, I might also find certain cases that would embarrass my hon. friend.
Mr. BOYS:
I am not making this suggestion in order to cause any trouble. I am suggesting to the minister that he should so word this that the intention' of the clause may be carried out as I submit it cannot be at the present time.
Mr. CANNON:
If I make that amendment, my hon. friend might find other cases that would compel me to amend it again.
Mr. BOYS:
My hon. friend seems to have a high opinion of my ability. He has only to consider once again that what he has to deal with is the interest in the land, not in the dwelling house.
Mr. ELLIOTT:
We have in Ontario, as the hon. member (Mr. Boys) well knows, a clause that corresponds almost exactly with the clause in this bill, that is a clause by which the county that helps an indigent person shall have a right to a transfer of the property belonging to that person and the county judge is resorted to for his decision whether or not under all the circumstances the transfer should be made. In that case they charge the full maintenance and six per cent instead of $ve per cent. I happen to have the Ontario act in front of me.
Mr. BOYS:
Would my hon. friend read the wording? I am quite familiar with the act but I do not recall the exact wording.
rMr. Cannon.]
Mr. ELLIOTT:
It is chapter 290. [DOT] Section 12, subsection (3), reads:
Where an inmate of a house of refuge is or becomes possessed of any real or personal property out of which the cost of his maintenance or any part of it can be paid, if any sum is due for such maintenance and has not been paid, a judge of the county court of the county in which the house is situate may, on the application of the council of any municipality interested, and upon such notice to the inmate as he may direct, order.that any part of such real and personal property be vested in the corporation or corporations by which the house was established for the purpose of securing payment of the cost of the maintenance so due, or which may thereafter become due, with full power to take or recover possession of, manage, lease, mortgage, sell and convey all or any part of such property in the name of the inmate, or may make such other order, limiting oi' extending such powers, as may be deemed proper, due regard being had to the value of the property, and as to what part, if any, of it is necessary for the support and maintenance of the family of the inmate.
And so on. May I call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that the clause in question provides for a greater safeguard to the widow about whom the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) was quite properly concerned?
Mr. BOYS:
My hon. friend will agree with me at once that that demonstrates the point I am presenting to the committee. That deals with real property and personal property. Real property is the land; personal property is something that is movable. I am suggesting simply that the wording in this particular clause is wrong and that what we ought to have is what is in that very act.
Mr. ELLIOTT:
The clause reads:
Where a pensioner is the owner of an interest in a dwelling house.
That is an interest in a dwelling house, I do not care whether it is an interest which enables him to use it for one month or six months or a year or for life, or an interest in tenancy, or an interest in fee simple. My hon. friend knows quite well that if a house is built on a freehold, it becomes part of that freehold.
Mr. BOYS:
Real property.
Mr. ELLIOTT:
Yes. But any interest in a house covers every possible interest that he might have and he can convey it.