November 30, 1951

LIB

Frederick Gordon Bradley (Secretary of State of Canada)

Liberal

Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of Slate):

should like to lay on the table of the house the break-down of the information concerning the amounts owed by the various departments to the king's printer as well as the net debit balance in the treasury office against the king's printer, as requested by the hon. member for Greenwood.

Topic:   PUBLIC PRINTING AND STATIONERY ACT
Subtopic:   AMOUNTS OWING EY VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS TO KING'S PRINTER-NET DEBIT BALANCE
Permalink

PUBLIC WORKS

RUSTICO, P. E. I.-STORM AND FLOOD DAMAGE TO BREAKWATER AND HOMES


On the orders of the day:


?

Mr. W. Chester S. McLure@Queens

I

should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I only received word about this matter a few moments ago and was unable to send him any information concerning it. Has the minister been advised about the storm and flood damage to the government breakwater and fishermen's homes at Rustico, Prince Edward Island? If not, I would be pleased to give him the information I have received.

Topic:   PUBLIC WORKS
Subtopic:   RUSTICO, P. E. I.-STORM AND FLOOD DAMAGE TO BREAKWATER AND HOMES
Permalink
LIB

Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):

I am grateful to the hon. member for giving me the information. Up till now I had not heard about this storm.

Topic:   PUBLIC WORKS
Subtopic:   RUSTICO, P. E. I.-STORM AND FLOOD DAMAGE TO BREAKWATER AND HOMES
Permalink

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

INQUIRY AS TO RECOMMENDATION FOR INCREASE IN BASIC PENSION


On the orders of the day:


PC

John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):

should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in connection with the recent meeting of the general chairmen and the vice-presidents of the Canadian National Railways in a committee to review the Canadian National Railways pension plan. I should like to ask whether or not any recommendation has been made as a result of the meeting of that committee, to increase the basic pension of $25 a month for railway employees.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   INQUIRY AS TO RECOMMENDATION FOR INCREASE IN BASIC PENSION
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):

I wonder if the hon. member would allow me to take that as notice. Perhaps I could bring in a reply early next week.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   INQUIRY AS TO RECOMMENDATION FOR INCREASE IN BASIC PENSION
Permalink

RAILWAY ACT

IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION

LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved

the third reading of Bill No. 12, to amend the Railway Act.

Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION
Sub-subtopic:   MAINTENANCE OF TRACKAGE
Permalink

PENSION ACT


PROVISION FOR INCREASES IN RATES OF PENSION FOR DISABILITY AND FOR DEATH Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved the second reading of Bill No. 27, to amend the Pension Act.


PC

Alfred Johnson Brooks

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Brooks:

Is the minister going to make any further statement at this time?

Topic:   PENSION ACT
Permalink
LIB

Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Lapointe:

No; it is not my intention to do so. I will give explanations in committee if my hon. friend wishes them.

Topic:   PENSION ACT
Permalink
PC

Alfred Johnson Brooks

Progressive Conservative

Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):

I should like to make a few remarks. Bill 27 is a short bill consisting of two sections. Of course the important part is the schedule. I think there is general approval among all members of the main principles of the measure. We took one objection the other day with reference to the date. I am sure we would have liked to have the payments made retroactive. However, we realize that an amendment to that effect cannot be submitted as it would mean an expenditure of money, and naturally would be declared out of order. There is also the question of pensioners receiving a pension under section 21 of the act. Under section 21 a compassionate pension is paid under certain conditions. I do not think this section is too widely known, and I think that I might read it.

Section 21 (1) of the Pension Act is as follows:

The commission may, on special application in that behalf, grant a compassionate pension, allowance or supplementary award in any case which it considers to be specially meritorious, but in which the commission has decided that the applicant is otherwise unqualified to receive such an award or supplementary award under this act.

And then subsection 2 dealing with amount says:

The amount of any compassionate pension, allowance or supplementary award granted under this section shall be such sum as the commission shall fix, but not exceeding the amount to which the applicant would have been entitled if his entire claim to payment had been upheld.

Our contention is that pensioners receiving pensions under that section should not receive the same consideration as those who come under the general Pension Act. We realize, of course, that the pension to which I am referring is granted by the authority of the commission. However, my understanding is that when in 1948 there was an increase in the pension we had an assurance from the then minister that these people would receive the same treatment as other pensioners. When the minister discusses the matter I would ask if we might not receive the same assurance from him.

In addition to this group, there is another that I feel should receive consideration. I refer to dependent parents. I believe they receive their pensions through the commission, under section 33 (2) of the act. I would

Pension Act

ask the minister also to consider these dependent pensioners, and we would ask comment from him as to whether assurance cannot be given to them as well.

With reference to those receiving pensions under section 21 I would point out that those pensions are received on account of specially meritorious service. Their cases are usually reviewed with great care. It is found that they are soldiers who have given special service in the field of battle. Anyone who has been connected with pensions must know that, while possibly 90 or 95 per cent of our pensioners are undoubtedly deserving of their pensions, owing to the fact that, particularly in the first war, many got into the army although they were medically unfit, some became more or less of a burden on the army from the time they entered until they were discharged. I know of these cases, many of whom received not only a part but a full pension. If they are to receive this increase in pension, then it does seem to me that every consideration should be given to the man who has rendered meritorious service.

I would refer also to the case of the small pensioner who receives an allowance. I feel that the increase in the pension to the pensioner who receives an allowance should not be considered as income. In 1948, when an increase in pension was given to our veterans, this increased pension was not considered as income. Section 18 (3) of the amendment to the Pension Act in 1948 states:

An increase in pension paid to any person by virtue of this section in respect of any period prior to the day on which this act receives royal assent shall not be included (a) as income for the purposes of the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946.

If that section was put in the amendment in 1948, then I see no reason why the increase in pensions at this time should be considered as income. I say the same consideration should be given now as was given the war veterans in 1948.

Topic:   PENSION ACT
Permalink
CCF

Percy Ellis Wright

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfori):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words before the bill passes. All hon. members are pleased to have had this measure introduced at the present session.

I should like to pay a compliment to the veterans organizations in Canada, including the Canadian Legion, who presented their case so well to the public, to members of the House of Commons and to the government. I am sure it is largely because of the very able way in which they presented their case that we have this legislation at the present session, and in the form in which we now see it

Pension Act

Those veterans organizations did an excellent job for the returned men. As a returned man, I am sure other returned men in the house will join with me when I say that every returned man should belong to a veterans organization. They have demonstrated that they can do a good job in presenting the case for their members. They have done so in this case, and I believe returned men should give those organizations their wholehearted support, by joining them and assisting in future presentations to be made on behalf of all veterans.

In 1948, at the time of the last increase in the pension, hon. members from this group thought that the pension payments should be attached to the cost of living index. We felt that when price controls in Canada were taken off we would have an increase in the cost of living index, and that veterans pensions should be governed by that increase. As a matter of fact in the veterans committee of that time we moved an amendment which, in effect, would have given one dollar of increase per month for each point of rise in the cost of living index. That amendment went to a vote, and that amendment was defeated by the deciding vote of the chairman of that committee. Had the amendment been accepted the veteran would have been in an even better position today than he will find himself with the increased pension set out in the present measure.

However, all hon. members are pleased to note the introduction of this measure. It has not gone as far as some of us would have liked. The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) referred to two groups, those receiving compassionate pensions, and the dependents of deceased veterans. With the hon. member for Royal, I feel the minister should give us a statement as to what is going to take place with regard to the pensioners in these groups.

We have the assurance of the government that at the next session of parliament war veterans allowances will be considered, that the case of those receiving war veterans allowances will be placed before a veterans committee, and that they will be given the same sympathetic consideration as was given to the pensioners affected by this measure. We hope the government will announce either that these groups will be taken care of at this session, or at least that their case will be presented to the war veterans committee at the next session.

There is also the matter of further increases in children's allowances. There is a very small increase in the present measure. Some will argue that because of the general payment of children's allowances in Canada, it

was not necessary to increase the children's allowance under the present legislation. However, I would point out that in many cases, especially where the soldier did not return to Canada or where he has returned to Canada and is in hospital under treatment or is incapacitated, he is not in the same position to take care of his children as are some of us who were more fortunate. I think that the government should be liberal especially in their dealing with the children of war veterans. I have felt for a long time that that is one thing we have failed in with respect to our veterans legislation namely in making better educational provision for war veterans' children.

Topic:   PENSION ACT
Permalink

November 30, 1951