Mr. St. Laurent:

In the past we have been able to take steps ourselves and thus avoid having measures taken against us and something of that kind could help take care of situations which might otherwise develop into more serious irritations. The hon. gentleman knows, as I do, that we fear a great many terrible consequences that do not materialize, and that they look much more serious when we are looking forward towards them. I know from experience here that there have been many cases where we have been able to relieve possible causes of irritation by actions taken by ourselves with our own people. It might be possible for something of that kind to be done, to avoid allowing molehills to become mountains.

Mr. Green:

Item 715 includes a vote toward the dredging of the first narrows in Vancouver harbour. Can the minister give us any idea as to when tenders will be called for that work?

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

This amount is required towards the cost of deepening the first narrows to a depth of 40 feet below low water. The proposed work is strongly urged by the Vancouver chamber of shipping, Vancouver merchants' exchange and the greater Vancouver metropolitan industrial development commission, to accommodate the larger size and greater draft of the modern merchant ships using Vancouver harbour. Proposed depth of 40 feet is necessary properly to manoeuvre these vessels. A committee has been set up to study the report. To deepen the channel of first narrows to a depth of 40 feet below low-water level, it is estimated that the cost would be $1,800,000. I do not wish to give the unit price because tenders will probably be called in the near future, as soon as possible. This request was made not only by the various bodies I have mentioned but also by the two ministers of that province; I see here there is also a gentleman by the name of Howard Green, M.P., who insisted on having this vote, and also Mr. Arthur Laing, M.P. .

Mr. Knowles:

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

Yes, ex-M.P.

The next premier of British Columbia.

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

And Captain C. Clax-ton. It seems that everybody agrees with this expenditure. I will do my best to please them in the near future.

Mr. Green:

I would ask when the minister expects that tenders will be called. There is a great deal of urgency about this matter.

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

I have here the whole plan describing it, but what stage it has reached I do not know. My officials always hesitate to undertake work before parliament authorizes the amount. If we pass this amount, I will give instructions that they get to work immediately.

Mr. Green:

Does it take a matter of months to have tenders called?

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

I do not know much about dredging; but if they have the reports on the soundings in the area to be dredged, it should not be very long. We will publicly advertise and get some tenders; and I think we will proceed in the near future.

Mr. Green:

Has any agreement yet been reached between the minister's department and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration concerning the site for the fishermen's wharf in False creek, Vancouver?

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

I know that negotiations are going on between the two departments and last week I was told that they were nearing completion. I recall that fact because another member, the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard, inquired. I think we can come to a settlement with the Indian affairs branch of that department.

Mrs. Fairclough:

Mr. Chairman, as I started out to say on the first item-but I agreed to postpone my remarks until later on-the matter of the Old Age Pensions Act and its continuance has led to considerable confusion. A number of statements have been made by various people, both in the provincial administrations and in the federal administration, none of which has done anything to clarify the situation.

I might say that scarcely a week goes by that I do not read a letter to the editor somewhere, or receive a letter myself, from some person who is greatly concerned over the fact that the Old Age Pensions Act is still on the statute books, and consequently the provisions of that act are still in force.

There have been a few occasions on which questions have been asked of the minister or of officials of his department, and the answers which I have seen have not dealt with the Old Age Pensions Act at all but rather with the new act, namely, the Old Age Security Act. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this situation cannot be clarified until one of two things happens, either the Old Age Pensions Act is repealed or the minister undertakes to make a clear-cut statement of dominion policy with regard to claims on pensioners' estates. The fact is that this act, not having been repealed and having been superseded by the Old Age Security Act and the Old Age Assistance Act, still leaves on the statute books the other regulation which requires the provinces, if they adhere to the letter of the law, to make claims on all estates of pensioners in excess of $2,000. The new acts-the Old Age Security Act and the Old Age Assistance Act-make no provision at all for recovery from estates.

To give the committee some idea of the confusion which has arisen from time to time,

1 should like to quote information which has been given to me. I understand that under date of February 16, 1952, the deputy minister of national health and welfare wrote in part as follows:

I must take the view that until such time as the Old Age Pensions Act is repealed, the provisions of section 9 (2) thereof remain in full force and

2 fleet-

Later on the minister himself, on October 2, 1952, wrote as follows:

Section 9 and 2 of the Old Age Pensions Act, chapter 156, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, together with relevant provisions of the agreement entered into under this legislation between the provincial government of Ontario and the federal government, clearly lays down the conditions under which recoveries from estates are to be made.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the government is under no misapprehension as to the wishes of the provinces in this regard because 75 per cent of all claims come back again to the federal government and the 25 per cent which stays with the provinces does not even compensate them for the claims which are made. In so far as Ontario is concerned, the Ontario government has requested the repeal of the act before now; but still the act stays upon the statute books.

This matter has been the subject of some discussion in the press, in both news articles and editorials. For instance in the Windsor Daily Star, under date of April 4, 1953, I find an article which is headed "Age Pension Leaves All Estates Clean." It says that under the Old Age Security Act no claims will be made. Then it refers to a statement made in the house with regard to claims under the Old Age Pensions Act and it sets out that under this act claims were made upon estates of pensioners but still leaves the impression that that practice has been discontinued. In the Winnipeg Tribune of March 17, 1953, there is an article headed: "Reason for dunning pensioners is tabled". It talks about the question placed upon the order paper by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the answers which he received. It quotes an exchange of letters from the Hon. F. C. Bell, minister of health and public welfare for Manitoba and the Minister of National Health and Welfare for the dominion. In his correspondence Mr. Bell explained that there had been no material advantage to Manitoba in pursuing the policy of making recoveries, which action had only been justified under the federal act. He said at that time that he would be glad to have the federal government confirm the fact that it was not insisting on such collections.

I have another article here which gives the amount of collections made or which have finally accrued. This is the portion that went

Supply-Health and Welfare to the federal treasury in the last couple of years. It is given by provinces all lumped together. It amounts to $208,000. That amount was collected in a matter of two years. It seems to me that while $200,000 is a considerable sum of money, when you consider that it was all taken out of small estates of people who had, under a means test system, been adjudged eligible to receive old age pensions, and then upon their demise had been found to have had in excess of $2,000, and when you remember that to this $200,000 would have to be added the 25 per cent that went into the administration, and when you consider that the provinces, by reason of the continuance of this act, are forced to keep at least some staff for administrative purposes, I think you will admit that some definite action should be taken to clear up this regrettable situation.

While I am on this subject I should like to say that I personally, and also on behalf of those who have had some experience along the lines of my own, would like to express appreciation of the very fine services which have been rendered by Mr. Fred Jackson, the regional director of the Department of National Health and Welfare in Toronto. He has done an excellent job there during a very trying time. He has been most co-operative. I am sure everyone is highly pleased with his services, but I should like to press for definite action and to reiterate that there are only two things that can be done to clear up the situation of misunderstanding which is causing great worry to people with small estates and who did benefit under the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act. I think myself the act should be repealed without delay. But if there are administrative difficulties which would prohibit that, the least the minister can do is to make a clear-cut statement of dominion policy in this regard.

Mr. Graydon:

We want that clear-cut policy.

Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):

Is the minister in a position to say how much it would amount to if the means test were taken away for the blind? Would it cost the government very much?

Mr. Martin:

The amount of money involved is not the main consideration. As I said last night, the main consideration is that we would have to consult the provinces in respect of the matter to get their agreement; and, as I indicated last night, I understand some of the blind organizations are making representations to the provinces, as indeed they have made them to us. The amount would be roughly about $1,500,000.

50SS HOUSE OF

Supply-Health and. Welfare

On two previous occasions this year I have dealt with the question the hon. member for Hamilton West has just raised, and I do not know that I can add anything more to it.

I know my hon. friend has read the statements I gave in answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but so that there shall be no doubt about the situation, may I say this-the confusion arises, of course, because of the existence of the Old Age Pensions Act at a time when the Old Age Security Act and the Old Age Assistance Act and the Blind Persons Act are the law of the land. I think it desirable, so that there may be no confusion about this matter, to make a short statement that might be read in conjunction with what I have already said in direct answer to the kind of question raised by the hon. member a few moments ago. It should be clear that no recoveries are made from the estates of persons seventy years and over who receive benefits under the Old Age Security Act; the act does not permit it. Second, no recoveries are made from estates of persons 65 to 69 years of age who receive benefits under the Old Age Assistance Act; the act does not permit it. Third, no recoveries are made from estates of persons 21 to 69 years of age who receive benefits under the Blind Persons Act; again the act does not permit it. Fourth, no recoveries are made from the estates of persons now living and in receipt of benefits under old age security who formerly were beneficiaries under the Old Age Pensions Act. It is considered that to all intents and purposes the right to claim against the estates of these persons lapsed on January 1, 1952, when they were transferred from old age pensions to old age security. This means that the only instances in which claims are being maintained against the estates of deceased pensioners relate to instances where the pensioner was on old age pensions in 1951 or earlier when the Old Age Pensions Act was fully operative and before our new legislation came into effect. In all cases, such pensioners must have died before January 1, 1952, otherwise of course no claim would have been laid.

Claims were laid against certain estates by the provinces in 1951 or earlier but the lawyers handling the estates in some of these instances, or the executors or relatives or other interested parties, so we have been advised by the provinces, have been stalling or hesitating for one purpose or another and otherwise delaying settlement of these claims in the hope that the Old Age Pensions Act would be repealed and the claim abandoned.

Some of these cases have been pending now for over two years.

This statement I think will clear the situation in so far as the Old Age Security Act, the Old Age Assistance Act, and the Blind Persons Act are concerned. With regard to the Old Age Pensions Act, that matter is one that depends for action on the instance of the provinces. We have been in touch with the provinces, and four of them, that have a number of these cases outstanding, have not given us yet their consent or their agreement to repeal of the Old Age Pensions Act. I suspect that they wish to clear up some of these matters. In respect to some of these matters, I am sure that if my hon. friend were administering the act in the provinces- I say this because I have nothing to do with this phase of the matter-she might agree that in a particular instance there was justification for present provincial policy but there can be no question about the situation under the new federal legislation.