Mr. Fleming:

Seventy-five thousand; you will have to revise all your figures.

The Deputy Chairman:

Order.

Mr. Knowles:

Even if the total figure has to be reduced to 75,000 it then means that

53.723 out of 75,000 do not get one cent of the supplement provided by the provincial government of Ontario.

Mr. Case:

How many of the 58,000 applied for it?

The Deputy Chairman:

Order.

Mr. Knowles:

If I accept the suggestion to use the figure of 75,000 it makes the percentage that much worse as to those who do not get it.

Mr. Cruickshank:

What are you quoting from?

Mr. Knowles:

I am quoting from figures in the Toronto Star of April 2, 1949. My interest was such that I wrote them down in this little book.

Mr. Cruickshank:

Did George McCullagh not close that paper?

Mr. Knowles:

Not yet. He may be trying to, but that is off the subject. I quoted those figures for two reasons, on the one hand to show the need of somebody doing something for old age pensioners in a huge province like Ontario, and on the other hand to show that the Tory party, in the one province of the country where it is in power, is not doing anything very creditable for these people.

Mr. McGregor:

Tell us about Saskatchewan.

Mr. Knowles:

Saskatchewan pays $5.

Mr. Drew:

Subject to a means test.

Mr. Knowles:

Just a minute. I have not the figures here, but in Saskatchewan old age pensioners receive a supplement which averages well over $4, in fact close to $5. Look at what the average amounts to in the province of Ontario. It amounts to something in terms of cents when you consider it in relation to all the old age pensioners in the province. My hon. friends to the right, the Tory party, might well try to get this measure through without any discussion, so as to avoid the truth being stated, but they are not going LMr. Knowles.]

to get away with it any more than they got away with a certain discussion the other day when they were trying to make out that they were the protagonists of family allowances.

Hear, hear.

Mr. Knowles:

My hon. friends across the way are saying, "hear, hear", but it is their turn now. They are so pleased with themselves that on the very eve of an election the government has at last yielded to public pressure and brought in this amendment to the Old Age Pensions Act.

Mr. Cruickshank:

They listened to my advice.

Mr. Smith (Calgary West):

Is that pressure enough?

Mr. Knowles:

Where have you been all the time? The amendment proposes to increase from $30 to $40 a month the amount of the pension as provided by federal statute, in other words, the amount of the pension of which the federal government will contribute 75 per cent. That the amount should be $40 does not need to be argued at all. As a matter of fact, it certainly should be not less than $50 a month. However, it is good that we are moving up toward that figure. Until well into 1943 the pension was only $20 a month. In the summer of 1943 it was raised to $25; in 1947 it was raised to $30, and now we are moving on up to the minimum figure that should be given for a decent old age pension.

There are, however, certain deficiencies in the bill before us that should be drawn to the attention of the government as forcefully as possible. The Prime Minister today referred to the bill as one that the house would approve. He said the only thing that would be found wrong with it would be that there was not enough in it. He was right. There is not enough in it in terms of the amount of the pension. As I say, it should be $50.

Another shortcoming, and a very serious one, is one to which I called the attention of the minister by means of a question on the orders of the day yesterday. Section 1 proposes to increase the amount of the pension from $30 to $40 per month, but it does not raise the ceiling on a pensioner's income. At the present time according to the act-we will stick to monthly figures although the act is phrased in annual terms-the pension is $30 a month, and the ceiling on a pensioner's income is $50 per month. That means that a pensioner can now draw the full $30 pension and have $20 a month as other income. If he earns anything more than $20 the amount of his pension is reduced so that the total, including his pension, is not over $50 per month. The ceiling of $50 a month, how-

ever, is not changed by the terms of this bill. The result is that the ceiling of $50 remains so that now a pensioner can have a pension of $40 per month provided he has other income of not more than $10. Although yesterday the Minister of National Health and Welfare, with his usual fanfare, told me that the present government makes the most generous provision for other income anywhere in the world, that so-called generous provision being $20 per month in the case of a single person, other income is now reduced to $10 a month in the case of a single person. As if that is not enough-

Mr. Martin:

What jurisdiction does better?