Mr. DUNNING:

It is not under the act at all.

Mr. NEILL:

And as I say, I am not attacking -the minister or-

Mr. DUNNING:

Or this act.

Mr. NEILL:

I am trying to suggest that the minister should take power to tell the people in British Columbia that if they want to get their money they will have to administer the act according to our act. Is that not a proper idea?

This is some of the information they want: The name of the child; relationship; age; number of dependent children; full address; married, single, widower, or divorced; occupation ; name of employer of each son, daughter or daughter's husband; his employer's address, and his earnings for -the past twelve months. A woman may have a daughter married to a man with six children. They must have information about -his employer, and the employer must put in a return of the employee's wages for the last twelve months, and for the last three months, month by month.

Mr. DUNNING:

Not under this law, or under the regulations.

Mr. NEILL:

That is what I am complaining about. I am glad to hear the minister say it is not under this law.

Mr. DUNNING:

I just wish to say that what the hon. member has been saying has not been about the bill now before the house, not with respect to this statute, but with respect to some statute in the province of

Old Age Pensions-Mr. Neill

British Columbia, which, it is true, to a certain extent ties in with the operation of the present old age pension law. That is one of the difficulties which arise where partnership arrangements exist between the dominion and the province. I must say however that it is conveying a false impression, because I think every complaint of the hon. member is with respect to British Columbia administration and British Columbia law, not the law we are discussing to-day.

Mr. NEILL:

Then I have totally failed to make my meaning clear. I did mention the British Columbia law, namely the Parents' Maintenance Act, but that was only incidental. Now I am talking, and have been from the start, about the action of the British Columbia board under regulations made by this act.

Mr. DUNNING:

My hon. friend said it was not under the regulations.

Mr. NEILL:

I said it should not be; that is what I meant. Here it is, headed "Old Age Pension Act; application for a pension," and it is done by authority of this act.

Mr. DUNNING:

No, no.

Mr. NEILL:

And by regulations made

under the act.

Mr. DUNNING:

No; the hon. member

forgets there are old age pensions acts in every province, by which each province may authorize its government to enter into an agreement with the government of Canada, under the provisions of the federal act. The province may and often does impose conditions in and for the province which are over and above the conditions imposed by the federal act and the federal agreement.

Mr. NEILL:

Again that is not the situation. In the first place, the Old Age Pensions Act provides for agreements to be made between the provinces and the dominion.

Mr. DUNNING:

Right.

Mr. NEILL:

Specifications are made in an agreement which is arrived at, and signed. All a province does is to pass an enabling act, agreeing to the agreement.

Mr. DUNNING:

No, it is more than that.

Mr. NEILL:

It is not permitted under our act to impose any conditions in British Columbia different from those in Alberta. For instance, there could not be a provision for twenty years' residence in Alberta, and ten years' in British Columbia.

Mr. DUNNING:

No; with respect to that kind of condition the hon. member is correct.

But my statement is nevertheless correct with respect to conditions other than the one he has mentioned.

Mr. NEILL:

The conditions about which I am complaining are not carried out under any British Columbia act. They are carried out under the powers of the federal act. When I say, "Who is administering the Old Age Pensions Act in British Columbia?" I am told it is the board in Vancouver. It is the workmen's compensation board that administers it. They say they are not bound by any law of the province. When they are administering our act they take advantage of the regulations under the act. What I am complaining about is that they go beyond those regulations and1 invent restrictions of their own, which are not under the dominion law or authority at all. That is the point I am trying to make.