,, Legislative Assembly

Hon. M. Lorne Bonnell: That child is not refused if there is need in that family, but it is not the policy of our Department to pass out pension cheques for the sake of passing them out if there is no need in the family. We are not going to tax you and the rest of the people of this province to pay pensions to people when there is no need. That is not our policy.

Henry W. Wedge: The problem here. you are taking the need of the family. You might have two of the boys that are in that family that are out earning. You might have two of the boys that are out earning in that family and t'rcir income is con- sidered, so that retarded child is turned down for any assistance. Is that right?

Hon. M. Lorne Bonnell: Only if the need is there will he get any assistance, and if there is no need, he will get no assistance. The head of the house is taken as the householder.

Henry W. Wedge: And also the earning of the children, if they are making $10.00 a week selling newspapers, is that considered?

Hon. M. Lorne Bonnell: No, that is not taken into consideration, the family allowance is not taken into consideration because it is not considered income.

Henry W. Wedge: But any earnings coming into the home is considered isn’t it? Hon. M. Lorne Bonnell: Any earnigs that the head of the house brings in or his spouse. Henry W. Wedge: You mean a child making $10,000 a year is not considered?

Hon. M. Lorne Bonnell: A child making $10,000 a year?

Henry \V. \Vedge: One of the family is making $10,000 a year. It’s only the father and the mother.

Hon. M. Lorne Bonnell: What the father, mother. grandmother or his sister, his brothers is making is of no material to that household I would think.

Henry W. Wedge: Oh that is great, I will get them to reapply then.

Hon. M. Lorne Bonnell: It is the head of the house or if there is someone else living in part of the house perhaps they are paying rent that would give them some extra money. I don’t know that; if I knew the case for you look at these things individually, it is a matter of need. It is not a matter of politics or anything else.

L. George Dewar: We should not be interrupting the Minister, I know, but one more question. Don’t you think, though, that that money for that disabled child irrespec- tive of the immediate circumstances in that family should be provided somehow in trust for his future. He is going to be a liability in the future.

Hon. M. Lorne Bonnell: When he is a liability we will certainly meet his needs. He doesn’t have to be eighteen any more; if he is only three years old and he is disabled, we will look after him. No longer do you have to wait to be eighteen if you are retarded or mentally slower than the rest of us; that age is gone. You don’t have to wait to be eighteen to apply: you can apply, at a year old, two year old, five year old. If there is need for help for that child, the need will be met under our means test.

I would like to state, Mr. Speaker, just a few figures to show that in 1965 the amount paid by the former government was $10.07 as an average per household. $10.07 average and when you consider the $75.00 that we paid there average was $10.07. In 1966 the average was raised by nine cents, to $10.16.

\Valter R. Shaw: I wonder if I could interrupt and ask you a question, Mr. Minister. I am sorry to interrupt. I have a particular case of a man that was active, he lives alone, and he took a stroke and he is not able to do any work of any kind, is partly blind. He applied for assistance and all he got was $20.00 a month for three months. What about a case of that kind? It doesn’t make any difference whether it is winter or summer, he is not able to work.

Hon. M. Lorne Bonnell: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman, I don’t

—250—