1944-07-25

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the attention of the government, and 
particularly of the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), under whose department I think this matter would come, to a Canadian Press dispatch from Vancouver which appeared in the morning papers. -This relates to a matter which was referred to in the house on a previous occasion, namely, the report that certain stores and commodities used in the construction of the Alaska highway by the United States government have been destroyed.
On July 10, as reported on page 4648 of Hansard, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) gave an answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). His answer was as follows:
Since notice of the question was given, inquiries have been made through the special commissioner for defence projects in northwest Canada. The special commissioner has informed the government that investigations do not reveal that usable stores and equipment are being destroyed or abandoned as reported.
I think the house took that as a final answer in connection with the matter. But to-day the matter breaks out afresh. I want to ask the government if they will provide an answer-I do not suggest that it can be done to-day-to this question. First of all, it appears in the press dispatch that the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the United States is now threatening to prosecute some Canadian nationals or citizens in the Alaska highway area. I would like to know whether or not that is possible, or whether it is by arrangement between this government and the United States government.


Mr. CRERAR:: What is that based on?


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if you would allow' me to transgress the rules sufficiently to read a paragraph or so of this news dispatch, I could do so. It is very important.


An hon. MEMBER:: We have all read it.


Gordon Graydon: Some hon. members may have read it, but there are two hundred or so members, and perhaps my hon. friend would not mind my reading it for their benefit. He does not need to listen. The article reads:
The Vancouver Xews-Herald said to-day in a newspaper story date-lined Dawson Creek, British Columbia, that residents of the Peace River district who have been combing United States army dumps to recovek stores allegedly discarded, "face the threat of prosecution by the United States federal bureau of investigation."
"Prosecution of settlers for having American made goods in their possession was launched in two instances," the New-IIerald said, "but it failed for lack of evidence the goods were stolen."

Farm Prices
Then it goes on to say:
"The amount of usable stores here is tremendous. The American authorities want to get rid of them, but Ottawa says no," the paper said, quoting a sworn statement.
And again:
American authorities are bound by an agreement under which the goods were brought in duty free for the highway construction, it added. Lack of transportation and high costs prohibited removal of most of the goods back to .the United States.
I bring this matter to the attention of the government in order that they may be able to provide a satisfactory answer to the points I have raised.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: May I just say this one word? This matter should be investigated. I have just come back from that area, and some ugly stories are being told of the destruction not only of equipment of this type but of tractors, bulldozers and all kinds of things. As this dispatch states, the onus has been placed on Canada because of our refusal to allow these goods to remain here because no duty was paid, and the cost of shipping them out of the country being too great. That is the story that is told, and I think it should be investigated.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Who is placing the onus on Canada?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. leader
of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) has, as he himself has said, transgressed the rules in asking his questions regarding a newspaper statement. If any member asking a question on the orders of the day based on a newspaper statement wished to identify himself with the truth or accuracy of the report, then of course he would be in order, but simply to read reports from newspapers and make statements aoout them is clearly outside what is permissible on the orders of the day. I would suggest that hon. members paraphrase what is contained in a newspaper statement or give whatever information they may have regarding it or whatever authority they have for its accuracy. But the minister may reply if he wishes to.
Mr. GRA\DON:	Mr. Speaker, I asked for
the consent of the house to transgress the rules, and I did not transgress without that consent.


Thomas Vien: The house has recognized, and I have always recognized, that the leader of the opposition should be allowed more latitude than is accorded probably to any other member because of the very fact of his position. But when the leader of the opposition takes upon himself the responsibility of transgressing the rules, even with the consent of the house, I would draw to the attention of all hon. members the fact that no member is allowed to transgress the rules, and I state that rule now for future guidance.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker, if I might be
permitted a word, I have just now been handed a document relating to this matter, which I have not yet had a chance to look through, but if I understand the situation aright, the stores mentioned were owned by the United States authorities and were under their control, and I am at a loss to know in what way the Canadian government could have interfered with their disposition. I have just glanced over this document sufficiently to learn that the United States authorities apparently indicate that these stores were either infected goods, blankets and the like, or food that was unusable. Whether that is correct or not I do not know.


Gordon Graydon: Bulldozers would not be infected.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Just a moment. I did not interrupt my hon. friend. He is pretty good at. interrupting; I sometimes think he is the official interrupter.


Gordon Graydon: No, I would not like to take that honour from my hon. friend over there.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is well to keep in mind this fact, that these goods were not Canadian goods and were not under the control of the Canadian authorities. It is a question of how far the Canadian authorities would be justified in interfering. I shall bring the facts to the attention of the Prime Minister and perhaps on Thursday he will be able to make a statement.



FARM PRICES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture, moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That _ it is expedient for the purpose of supporting farm prices during the transition from war ito peace to introduce a measure to establish a board with authority to purchase through agents or otherwise, staple agricultural products at prices recommended by the board and approved by the governor in council, or to make such payments in respect of staple agricultural products as may be necessary to bring average returns to producers up to the prices; so approved, and to give the board such powers as may be necessary for the handling and din-
Farm Prices
[Stage Direction]
position of products purchased; and further to provide for the appointment of such officers, clerks and employees as may be necessary;
To provide further that the governor in council may authorize from time to time payments out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, up to an aggregate of two hundred million dollars, for expenditures under the said measure, exclusive of administrative expenditures; that there shall ibe a special account to which all expenditures under *the said measure, other than administrative expenditures, are charged, and to which all receipts from the sale or disposition of agricultural products shall be credited, which receipts shall be available in the account for subsequent expenditures provided that the net realized profits in the account in any fiscal year shall be credited to the consolidated revenue fund and any net realized loss in the account in any fiscal year shall be recouped to the said account from an appropriation by parliament for the purpose.
Mr. COLD WELL:: Was it announced last night that we would go on with this?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Major James William Coldwell: This is a very important resolution. I ask, was it announced last night that we would go on with this this morning? because we should come prepared to say something on it.


Mr. GARDINER:: I have no desire to press the resolution, but the general practice in connection with resolutions of this kind is to get along to the point where we can have the bill before us. I think it would be much better to have the resolution dealt with and the bill printed and distributed before a discussion takes place on it, and I should like to advance the resolution so that we can get that done.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not objecting to that, but I do suggest that an outline of the business of the house should be given overnight so we may know what is coming. While it is true that this is on the order paper, yet other matters were to be discussed to-day. I have no objection; I think the minister is right, that the resolution should be advanced; but I protest against something being brought in this morning which was not mentioned last night as included in the business of to-day.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It was intended last evening to proceed with the bills standing in the name of the Minister of Finance, but objection has been taken on the ground that they were not distributed. We are now sitting from eleven o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock at night; and a very heavy additional burden is thus imposed on the printing office. In the general effort to expedite the business of the house I am sure that hon. members will take that into account. While this resolution was not specifically mentioned, I understand, last

night, we hope that the house will agree to go ahead with it.


Major James William Coldwell: I have no ebjection.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: The Minister of Agriculture should make a detailed statement on the purpose of this resolution before the motion carries, and1 then we will be in a position, perhaps, to cross-examine him in committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: The resolution states fully the contents of the bill which it is proposed to present to the house. The intention of the bill is to make it possible for a board to be appointed to consist of three persons, one of whom will be the chairman and one the vice-chairman. The responsibility of that board will be to make a study of the conditions existing during the period that we have had ceiling prices established on farm products and to relate that to conditions existing in Canada affecting other industries as well as people engaged in other activities; to study as well, when the time arrives, conditions in the post-war period, and from- time to time to submit to the Minister of Agriculture, and through him to the government, recommendations as to which farm products should have floor prices placed under them, the method1 by which that should be done,' and the level at which those prices should be established. The final decision with regard to the matter will rest with the governor general in council. Once the floor prices are established, the board will have authority to purchase and sell farm products on the basis of that floor price level, or to set up commodity boards to purchase and sell, or to establish other agencies to purchase and sell on its behalf any farm product which is declared by order in council to be one on which it is necessary to have floor prices, and as to what that floor price is.
That is the general principle of the bill. The part of it which has to do with the setting up of the board and with examining into conditions now existing comes into effect at once; but the part which provides for the buying and selling of goods, if that becomes necessary during the transition period from war to peace, will come into effect by proclamation at the time it becomes necessaiy to do that kind of thing; that is, at some time towards the end or following the end of the war.
That in principle, Mr. Speaker, is the content of the bill which will be introduced as a result of passing this resolution.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gardiner thereupon

Fisheries Prices
5315 moved for leave to introduce bill No. 168, for the support of the prices of agricultural products during the transition from war to peace.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FISHERIES PRICES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Minister of Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:-
That iit is expedient for the purpose of supporting fisheries prices during the transition from war to peace to introduce a measure to establish a board with authority to purchase through agents or otherwise staple fisheries products at prices recommended by the board and approved by the governor in council, or to make such payments in respeot of staple fisheries products as may be necessary to bring average returns to producers up to the prices so approved, and to give the board such powers as may be necessary for the handling and disposition of products purchased; and further, to provide for the appointment of such officers, clerks and employees as may be necessary;
To provide further that the governor in council may authorize from time to time payments out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, up to an aggregate of twenty-five million dollars for the expenditures under the said measure, exclusive of administrative expenditures; that there shall be a special account to which all expenditures under the said measure, other than administrative expenditures, are charged, and to which all receipts from the sale or disposition of fisheries roduets shall be credited; which receipts shall e available .in the account for subsequent expenditures provided that the net realized profits in the account in any fiscal year shall be credited to the consolidated revenue fund and any net realized loss in the account in any fiscal year shall be recouped to the said account from an appropriation by parliament for the purpose.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I should
like to have an explanation from the minister. Will he state whether the programme has been thought through, or whether this is in the same stage as the agricultural war prices matter- not to come into effect until the period of transition is over?
Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier); This resolution is to the same effect as the previous one relating to agricultural products, but there are a few changes in it. The amount to be provided is 825 million, and there is a board of three, which has the same power as the board to be etsablished in respect of agricultural products. The changes are just those which are necessary on account of the fisheries in so far as the fisheries differ from agricultural products.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bradette in the chair.


Mr. SENN:: Are these bills ready for distribution, or will they be ready as soon as this passes?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who will compose the board? Will they be permanent officials of the department, or is it intended to go outside to set up the board?
Mr. BEiRTRAND (Laurier): The bill does not say whether the members are to be officials of the department or not. When the time comes we shall look for the best men we can find. It is customary to have at least one of the members from among our officials, but I cannot say who it will be. There will be one from the department and the two others will be chosen among the fishermen and the trade.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury).; Will consideration be given to having one member of this board from the group of fishermen themselves and not from the processors?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier) :: I would not like to commit myself definitely on it, but my intention is, as I explained, to have one member chosen among the fishermen.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not so understand. Is that a definite pledge, that one member of this board will be from the primary producer class, one from the department itself and the third to be appointed? Is that what the minister states?


Ernest Bertrand: That is what I have in mind.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is nothing binding, then.


Ernest Bertrand: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I think the minister ought to give some undertaking with regard to these men, who for the most part are in the class of forgotten men, so that they shall be adequately represented and not represented by anyone from among the purely processing group. That is what has happened too often, and it is what has happened under certain conditions that exist to-day in connection with the fisheries. Controls are in no sense representative of the producing class. So far as my observation goes, they are representative entirely of those who are interested in the business as nonproducers, and I submit that the point of view of the producers


Ernest Bertrand: What board has the hon. gentleman in mind?


Richard Burpee Hanson: You can imagine. I could name it, but I do not want to do so because I do not want to get
Fisheries Prices

personal. I will not name any individual, but I do insist that on any board set up to establish floor prices suitable to the fisheries the producers should be represented; otherwise I do not think they will get a fair show. It is important that this class of men should be represented. Certainly someone can be found among them who is intelligent enough and who has the confidence of his fellow men sufficiently to permit the government to appoint him to the board. I feel very strongly about this, because in days gone by, in many boards set up by this government, yes, and I might say by other governments, the producing class has not had very much say about matters which are vital to their well-being. Therefore I am pressing the minister to give an undertaking that when this board is set up the producing class shall be represented. The same principle should apply to the agriculture board. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will see that the producers of agricultural commodities are represented on the board. I should be astonished if he did not do that. It is a sound principle. In respect of the fishermen, however, I am afraid that unless the point is pressed, that will not be done.


Ernest Bertrand: It is my intention to recommend among the members of the board a member from the fishermen, the primary producers, but of course council will appoint him. My recommendation will be there. This resolution, and the bill that is to follow, are intended to help the fishermen themselves.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not objecting to the purpose of the resolution and the bill. I think that something has to be done in the period indicated in the resolution to protect the fishermen, because my observation over a considerable period of time is this, that after a period of inflation, such as we are bound to have in war time and such as we have now, when the price of fish is probably as high as at any time in the history of the industry, the prices to primary producers are the first to fall and the last to rise. Of course that is a difficult situation, difficult for the fishermen and for the government. There is no doubt about that. I do not know whether this is a good remedy. I am not sufficiently well versed as a student of economics to know whether the establishment of floor prices is a proper thing or not from the economic standpoint; yet I am anxious to see that some remedy shall be applied. If we were living in a different situation I would hesitate to press in connection with either agriculture or

fisheries for a floor or a ceiling, because there is a law of supply and demand and it is pretty hard to beat it. [DOT]
I was interrupted, in the confusion that prevailed at the moment in the chamber, so that I did not understand what the minister said in reply to my request for representation by a producer. I did not catch what he said. Would he be good enough to repeat what he said in that regard?


Ernest Bertrand: I said that it was my intention to recommend that on this board there should be a primary producer, a man from the department and one from the trade.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then may we take it as a pledge that this board will consist of a competent official from the department, a member from the producing class and 'a member from the trade? Is that to be the position?


Ernest Bertrand: Well, that is what I am going to recommend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As far as the minister is concerned, that is the policy he himself will propose to the governor in council. I think that is as far as I can ask him to go, but I should like to be as definite as possible on this point. My point is that the primary producer should be represented on the board.


Mr. NEILL:: I entirely endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). My quarrel is that he does not go far enough. He goes only half way.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You go the rest of the way.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not know where he got it, but he appeared to get from somewhere the idea that this board was to consist of three persons. Does the minister endorse that?


Ernest Bertrand: The board will have for its duty the management, the buying of fish, if we buy any, and so forth, but when the bill is introduced the hon. member will find that there is in addition an advisory committee.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not know whether this is the latest form of communism or socialism, or what it is, but it might be called midsummer night's madness. I wonder if the house and the government appreciate the extent to which this resolution goes-a resolution brought in to-day casually without notice. If we put it through the first thing we know we shall be dealing with a bill that is not printed, or we shall be asked to do so, or it

Fisheries Prices
will be submitted to us an hour or two before we discuss it. I wonder if the committee really appreciates the magnitude of what I might call the violence of the change that is suggested. They are going to appoint a board of three people to do what has never been done before in the whole world, namely, to fix a price for all fish products in Canada. On the suggestion of my hon. friend to the left, one of those three men is to be a member of the producing class, and one from the processing or manufacturing class, and apparently one a government official. Good heavens!
I cannot find words to express my astonishment-


Ernest Bertrand: May I intervene for a moment? This board is not going to fix the price, as my hon. friend suggests. It is to fix a minimum price when necessary. That is very lifferent,


Alan Webster Neill: And the government will have to take over the stuff at that minimum price. That is the idea. I wonder what they are going to do with it. As my hon. friend to the left says, the law of supply and demand will fix the price and the government will have to take the stuff over when it falls below a certain price. They will have to take a thousand tons of herrings to-day and a few thousand tons of pilchards to-morrow. What are they going to do with it? The same principle applies to the marketing boards who look after agricultural products. Certain people can grow potatoes at a profit at $20 a ton. Other people cannot grow potatoes at a profit at less than $40 a ton. Is the man who grows the expensively produced crop to be taken care of? Is that to be the standard? What is to be done with the stuff that is left on the government's hands?
There is to be a board of three. There are two large divisions of the fishing industry, one on the Pacific coast and the other on the Atlantic coast. Surely there ought to be a man from the Pacific and one from the Atlantic on this board to look after their special problems. Suppose that point is yielded and we get a man from the Pacific and a man from the Atlantic. The man on the Pacific has to deal with the capture and manufacture of whales. Do you think the man who fixes the minimum price on Whales or whale products will be qualified to fix the minimum price on pilchards or herrings? Then there are halibut and salmon, six different kinds of salmon each with a different value, varying as much as SS a case between the highest and lowest grades. Then there are herring and pilchard reduction plants, and so on. Then there is the liver oil industry. Three men are to be appointed. They
are to have the handling of this huge subject, and they are going to fix the minimum price. The minimum price will be so much. The minister says it will be a fair price. Who is to fix the fairness of the price?
As I have said, in one place the price of salmon may be so much, but it could not be begun to be produced at the same price somewhere else. All the complex implications of these things are to be handled by one solitary man on this board who represents the producer. Why, it would take a board of a hundred men to give justice to all these people. The resolution does not explain how it is to be done. I hope it will be explained in the bill. There is no law that I know of that has as yet been devised to beat the law of supply and demand. When there is more stuff produced than there is demand for, the price will go down. You can cover it up all you like, but the price will go down until the lower price induces a greater demand so that the market balances. That is the only way it can be done. If the government propose to do that, they will have an awful proposition on their hands, because when a certain price is guaranteed for herrings or potatoes and I know I can produce at that price I will exert my utmost efforts to produce, knowing that the government has to take care of it. Ordinarily I would be afraid to put in too many potatoes one year because it looked as though there was going to be a small demand, but when I have the government behind me I am reckless in that regard and I will put everything I can into the growing of those potatoes, knowing the government has to take care of me.
We are nearing the close of the session. This bill is being introduced now and will go through in a few days. I admit I do not understand how the government can in such a casual way deal with a subject of such huge complications and implications. I hope when we get the bill it will make clearer what is to be done. But I view this measure with considerable apprehension. I do not see how the thing is going to work. It is going to make for a lot of trouble and confusion. I do hope the bill will be more explanatory than the resolution, but as the Scots say, I have my doubts.


Mr. GILLIS:: It is not my intention to debate the resolution at this time. I do not think we can intelligently discuss the matter until the bill is before us. We intend to forego any detailed discussion until the bill is presented.
I agree with the hon. member for York-Sunbury. I am glad that I can find a spot to agree with him, because as a rule we dis-
Fisheries Prices

agree. I emphasize the necessity for having on this board representatives of the producers. Unless that is done I do not think you are going to make any changes. The manipulation of the fishing industry has been largely in the hands of the private buyers. If the composition of the board is to be such that you are merely going to give super-authority for the regulating, marketing and fixing of prices to those who have exploited the industry in the past, then you are not going to make any changes in the interest of the fishermen.
I do not share the fears of the 'hon. member for Comox-AIberni. I know that within the industry itself, and within the past ten years, the cooperative movement has developed men who are capable of solving the problems of the fishermen through the medium of the machinery now being set up by the government, if they are given the opportunity. I could name a dozen men from the ranks of the fishermen, on the east coast at least, who are qualified in the field of marketing and price fixing and every phase of the industry. If these men are taken in and given a chance they will make a success of it. I wish to emphasize that because I think the Minister of Justice sounded the keynote yesterday when he referred to how the department endeavoured to select the judges. He said that they tried at all times to pick the judges from the practising profession. I think that is a good principle. It is a principle that should be applied to all the machinery that is being set up in a particular field. If it is good for the judiciary to select those who are to administer the law from those who are practising law and understand it, then that same principle should be applied to those boards that are being set up. Those who produce and understand the industry from the practical point of view should be given posts in the administration of the industry.
I shall reserve any further remarks I may have to make until the bill is before the house, because I have considerable to say on this question.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
delighted to find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Cape Breton South oni one point. I think we are both right. I was glad to hear him say that there are qualified men among the producers who could assist in this proposed programme; but you cannot ignore what the hon. member for Comox-AIberni has said. How are you going to make this board work? Let us get right down to brass tacks and if the minister and his department have any ideas on the subject, let us [Mr. Gillis.J
have them. How are you going to make it work, having regard to the principle of the law of supply and demand? There is an old saying that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.
If Canada were a self-contained nation and people were fish-minded I do not think there would be very much difficulty in establishing floor prices, if they were reasonable prices; but two-thirds of our total production goes into the export trade. I think that is an approximately correct statement. Therefore you are dealing in what is a world commodity. Unless it is intended merely to establish a subsidized or bonused position I do not see how this can be worked out; but if this thing is going to develop into a subsidy, let us call it by that name. That is what I think it will develop into, a subsidized position for the fishermen in the transition period. I have no great objection to that, provided it does not last too long and does not cost too much. Everybody else in this country is being subsidized; we are now going to subsidize judges' widows by giving them a pension; we are going to subsidize babies pretty soon, and before we get through with this thing everybody is going to be subsidized and we will be in the position of taking in each other's washing. That is what will happen; that is the ultimate end of this sort of legislation. Bonuses and subsidies are a last resort. They may be justified in an emergency, and I believe that in the transition period there will be a real emergency as far as the fishermen are concerned. Take our codfish industry on the east coast. How many people in Saskatchewan or Ontario have ever tasted the luscious dried cod of eastern Canada? Very few; yet that is the principal product of the Atlantic fishing industry.


James Garfield Gardiner: We distributed it but our friends of the C.C.F. did not like it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, they do not know what is good for them. If they would eat some of the Atlantic fish they might have a few more brains; at least that is the theory down there.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: It is not always
apparent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not
know whether that is intended to have any personal application, but if so I resent the implication as far as I am concerned. However, that is merely in passing. I want the minister to understand that I am really interested in this matter, in trying to work out some solution for what I believe will be a critical period in the history of the fisher folk among whom

Fisheries Prices
I was bom, whom I knew intimately as a lad, j>nd whom I have seen rise at three and four o'clock in the morning to go down to the sea and fish under extreme difficulties. They attract my sympathy, and if I can help I want to do so. But I do not see that the minister has told us anything practical that this proposed board can do except, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has said, to buy all the fish that may be offered. And then what? I thought my agricultural friends would go into the matter more deeply than they did, and perhaps they will when the bill is brought down-
Mr. CRUiCIvSHANK: They will when the bill comes down.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is a time and place for everything, and my hon. friend might contain himself for a few moments. I want the minister to tell us what the government propose to do. They are going to set up a board and, according to this resolution, place $25,000,000 at its disposal.


Ernest Bertrand: We are going to appropriate $25,000,000 if, as and when necessary.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As a sort of revolving fund, if I read this resolution correctly; and this board is going to have authority to purchase, through agents or otherwise, staple fisheries products at prices recommended by the board and approved by the governor in council, or to make such payments in respect of staple fisheries products as may be necessary to bring average returns to producers up to the prices so approved. That, of course, is a fair hope, but I want the minister to tell us how he proposes to accomplish that end. Or is this just a gesture before an election?


Mr. RALSTON:: Wait for the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Minister of National Defence says to wait for the bill. Probably the bill will be brought down next week, in the dying days of the session; I presume it is not prepared yet. The principles underlying this resolution and the bill which will be founded upon it should be given proper consideration. Has the minister a plan? If so, I challenge him to lay it on the table.


James Layton Ralston: Is my hon. friend for floor prices for fish, or is he not? It seems to me that is the principle dealt with in the resolution.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Minister of National Defence has no right to crossexamine me. That is an old trick; when you
are addressing one minister someone else asks a question to divert attention. You cannot do that with me. The net is set for me in vain in that respect. I am going to say this. Already I have made it clear that I am in favour of something being done to alleviate the condition of the fishermen in the transition period, and it may be that in default of any better plan we will have to give bonuses and subsidies.


James Layton Ralston: That is pretty general.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If you
cannot provide any other plan for the alleviation of the condition of the fishermen than subsidies, then I am going to vote for the plan, but for a limited period of time. That is very explicit, in reply to the Minister of National Defence. But I want to know if the government has a plan; I want the minister to tell us on this resolution. Then, in the light of the statements of the minister, we will consider the provisions of the bill and see if they measure up to that plan.


James Layton Ralston: The bill is the plan.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then the government must have a plan in mind in order to formulate the bill, so let us have it. I suspect that the bill is not drafted.
Mr. GARDINER [DOT] Oh, yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then the plan must be in mind and we should have it here.


James Layton Ralston: The only point is that
that means discussing it twice.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have
seen it given twice; the rules provide for that. The minister cannot rush us at this stage. I want to know what the plan is, what is proposed in the bill, how the government propose to solve the difficulties of the fishermen, which is most devoutly to be wished for, and I do not think we get it here. We do not get even the kernel of it. What are we going to do with the huge surplus of fish that will be dumped on our doorstep if the prices set by this board are such as to encourage wholesale production? That is what I want to know. Are we to burn them up, as they are said to be burning up valuable stuff on the Alaska highway? Are we to dump this fish back into the ocean, as they dumped coffee in Brazil to keep up the price? I do not know, and 1 think the minister must tell us.


Mr. ISNOR:: I approach this resolution
from a different angle than that from which other hon. members have spoken on it. I welcome this measure. I come from the Atlantic coast, where I have been closely associated
Fisheries Prices

with fishing villages in Halifax county,, and in touch with other Nova Scotia fishing districts. I believe I express the thought of the fishermen when I say they welcome such a measure. Other hon. members may be more conversant with fishing on a large scale, and I rather agree with one hon. gentleman who thought that this suggested board should be larger. I do not think a board with three members will be able to meet the requirements of Canada. This is a big country and the fishing industry on the Atlantic coast has different interests from those of the industry' on the Pacific coast.
The fishing industry represents approximately 875,000,000 of new wealth to Canada. Of this, $38,059,559 is produced on the Pacific coast, in British Columbia, while we on the Atlantic, in Nova Scotia produce something like $15,299,446. Of the total of $75,000,000, approximately $51,907,000 is export business. I am interested in maintaining that export business, because it means additional money and wealth for our people. It is for these reasons that I am particularly concerned about this measure. We have not the bill before us, so that I do not know just what its provisions will be. I do not know how we are going to overcome the price-fixing policy. The fishing industry is different from the agricultural industry. A fresh fish lasts only eight, nine or ten days before it begins to deteriorate. I want to see it made possible for our fishermen to obtain greater returns so that they may receive what we have been trying to get for them- for so many years-an adequate living.
The resolution will be followed by a bill which is to provide for the support of prices during the transition period from war to peace. There is to be established- a board with authority to purchase fisheries products at prices recommended by the board and approved by the governor in council. But there are a few words in the resolution which are important to the producers or the fishermen. The board is to be given such powers as may be necessary for the handling and disposition of products purchased. I feel that every hon. member who is interested- in the lot of the fisherman, who wants to see him provided with a better livelihood, should be in favour of a measure such as this.
As I said before, I do not know just what will be contained in the bill. No doubt I shall have further remarks to make on the different clauses of the bill. In Nova Scotia we have 6,115 fishermen and in Halifax county there are 802 active fishermen. So that we are interested in a measure such as this. I hope that when the board is set up it wjll not mean that just an election gesture is being made,

as has been suggested, but that something worth-while is being done for the fishermen, not only on the Atlantic coast but throughout all parts of the dominion.


Mr. REID:: To my mind this resolution will provide something for which the fishermen have been looking for the past twenty years at least. I cannot understand why the proceedings should be stopped at this stage in order to get the bill. The principle is sound and it will be welcomed by fishermen on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. I say, let us have the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is all very well, but I want the plan and I am entitled to get it at this stage. It may or may not be in the bill. The minister has not had an opportunity to answer my request.


Ernest Bertrand: I must say
that I am not a pessimist; I do not see the after-war period in as black a light as some hon. gentlemen. I think we have done a lot of work during the war and we have improved our machinery in many ways. I hope the fishermen are going to have improved conditions; I hope they are going to be more successful than ever. The purpose of the bill to be introduced is to foresee conditions that may arise after this war. The plan is to see that the prices of primary products do not fall to the low levels to which they fell between 1930 and 1936 and 1937. That is all. -I cannot go into the details because the bill will give most of the particulars, but that is the general plan. I am quite sure that this is but one more instrument given to the Minister of Fisheries and his officials to improve the lot of the fishermen after this war, if it is necessary to do that.


Alan Webster Neill: I hope the hon. member for New Westminster is right when he says that the fishermen are asking for this and will benefit by it. I have not heard any requests from them along those lines. I still think that i-t will be unworkable. It will not meet the conditions of a country which is spread out like this one, with so many diverse conditions. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) says that he hopes the prices will be raised to such an extent that the fishermen will find conditions more livable. So do we all. In times gone by I think I have heard him speak of a price of a cent and a half for a cod. I suppose if that price were multiplied by five the local fishermen down there would consider it satisfactory, but we in the west would not be satisfied with such a price because that is what we consider to be a very low price.
Only one man representing the fishermen is to be on this board. I cannot foresee how it

Fisheries Prices
will work. We have had a lot of trouble during the war, we have cheerfully but reluctantly put up with a lot of these boards that come along and say, "You must do this or do that." In some cases it has worked out fairly enough, but in other cases it has proved unworkable to a large extent. If this thing is to be spread all over the country it will have to be done on the average. The government will have to adopt something like that. They will have to fix an average price, but what may be a bonanza in one place will be ruination somewhere else. The fact that this is to be run by the government makes it impossible to take cognizance of local conditions.


Ernest Bertrand: The bill foresees that.


Alan Webster Neill: Then you will have an awful job on your hands.
Mr. HiANSON (York-Sunbury): It is quite apparent that the minister is only asking for enabling legislation to do something which he in his optimistic way does not anticipate will be necessary. I hope he is right.


Ernest Bertrand: I hope it will not be necessary.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I hope there will be no necessity for action on the part of the government to buy all the fish produced in Canada in order to save the situation. It is quite apparent that they have no plan. All the minister has is an objective, and with that we agree.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: It is going to work.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They have no plan at all.


Ernest Bertrand: I deny it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then trot it out and let us look at the old horse.


Ernest Bertrand: It is not necessary to make a long speech and repeat the same thing three or four times.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has not told us anything. He certainly has not replied to an intelligent interrogatory. What he has done is to state the objective which he and his department hope to attain in a certain contingency, namely, if prices drop to what they consider to be too low a level. That is all the minister has said. I suppose I am anticipating what is in his mind, but I suppose there will be set up an advisory committee. I have heard of these advisory committees. Do they ever function?


James Garfield Gardiner: Certainly they function. The agricultural food advisory committee is meeting to-morrow.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Minister of Agriculture knows his onions, I am sure, and he would grab a good suggestion as quickly as anybody I know. There will be an advisory board in this connection. Who will be on it? The intention is to set up an advisory board, I assume?


Ernest Bertrand: There will be an advisory board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The resolution does not say so. It will d>o' no harm, although I do not think it will do very much good unless the minister gets the right type of men on the board and listens to them. These men should be selected with great care. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that three will not be enough because of the diverse interests involved by reason of geographical position. The problems on the west coast are certainly different from our problems on the east coast and I suggest that there should at least be representatives from each coast. I do not want to see the board top-heavy with representation from the trade. Their representatives of course are intelligent men and they know their business, but primarily the objective of this legislation should be to help the fishermen, not the trade. If we cannot get anything more from the minister I shall have to sit down.


Alan Webster Neill: The government appointed an official about two years ago in British Columbia primarily to give advice in connection with prices to fishermen, and the gentleman appointed just happened-just happened -to be a large shareholder in one of the big fish processing companies. It is his advice that is put forward-I hope it is not always accepted-on matters affecting the producers. There is an illustration.
The best argument I have heard in favour of this proposal was that put forward a few minutes ago by the minister when he said that he hoped and believed that the legislation would never be used. That is a poor argument for legislation, the hope and belief that it will never be used.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just a minute; I am not going to be rushed off my feet. I am not going to rush ill-digested legislation through this house without proper
Fisheries Prices

consideration and examination. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has referred to the fact that the government appointed an officer from the west coast who was very deeply interested in one aspect of the fisheries business. I know that this government has appointed as fisheries controller a gentleman right out of the trade.


Ernest Bertrand: Has that anything to do with this resolution?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am telling you something.


Ernest Bertrand: You have said it already on the estimates.


The CHAIRMAN:: Standing order 40 mentions repetition. I think we have reached the stage where repetition must be declared out of order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did say something on the fisheries estimates but I have not repeated' anything here. I was just using that illustration as an analogy. I am just saying that the man who was appointed as fisheries controller did not in any sense represent the producers of this country. On the other hand he represents a very special interest.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: He has done a lot for the fishing industry.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He has done very well out of the fishing industry.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Quite honourably.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not saying anything against his character. What I am suggesting is that he does not represent the point of view of the producers, and the producers are at the mercy of these arbitrary controllers. I am not going to say anything more about this; you can do as you like.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Bertrand (Laurier) thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 169, for the support of the prices of fisheries products during the transition from war to peace.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



VETERANS' INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:

That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide life insurance on the life of veterans of the present war, payable to beneficiaries, as defined in the said measure, and upon the conditions thereby provided, or by regulations prescribed.
Moneys received by way of premium to form part of the consolidated revenue fund and payments under the contracts of insurance to be paid out of the said fund.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the minister should make a statement on this.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be very glad to make a brief statement at the present stage, because this bill is of a very complicated nature and I think it must be studied by hon. gentlemen before its details are thoroughly understood.
In a word, requests have been received from returned soldier organizations such as the Canadian Legion and the Canadian corps and other organizations throughout Canada for the renewal on behalf of those engaged in the present war of the provisions, either in the same form or a modified form, of the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act which we had for the veterans of the last war. Hon. gentlemen will recall that the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act was passed in 1920, extended in 1922, reopened	in 1928, and in	1929	the	act	wasextended	for another year.	In	1930	the	act
was again extended for three more years.
I intend to give a detailed explanation of the bill	upon the second	reading.	At	the
present stage I will give to the committee a very brief comparison as between the old Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act and this Veterans' Insurance Act.
The name of the old act was the Returned Soldiers'	Insurance Act.	This	act	will	be
known as the Veterans Insurance Act. The maximum contract under the old act was $5,000; under the new act it will be $10,000. These proposals have, been studied for a considerable period of time by a committee representing the services, the Department of Pensions and National Health, Finance and Justice, and they have made these recommendations after the most careful study of [DOT] actuarial and insurance principles and of the considerations advanced by returned soldier bodies.
The interest rate under the old act was 4 per cent. Under the new act it will be 3^4 per cent. The plan of insurance under the old act was payable for 10, 15 or 20 years, to the age of 65, for life or by a single premium. Under the new act it is payable for 10, 15 or 20 years, to the age of 65 or 85 under certain conditions.. That is a technical provision [DOT]which I would rather explain when the bill is before the committee. Life payments have

Veterans Insurance
been changed to "paid up at age 85" in accordance with modern insurance tendencies. The single payment plan, which was not taken up to any great extent, has been omitted from the present legislation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was not very practical.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right. Then as to disability benefits, the old act provided for the payment of a disability annuity, subject to certain conditions, and the waiver of premiums. The new act provides for the waiver of premiums as before, but disability annuities are not payable and the age for waiver of premiums is limited to sixty years. This change is also in accord with modern insurance practice. The disability annuity payable under the old act reduced the value of the policy and the protection for the dependents.
Then, as to the term for applications, under the old act it was open for two years, but as I said before, it was subsequently extended. The new act is for three years from the coming of it into force or three years from the date of discharge. This makes equal protection for those discharged and those still serving; it means that the 135.000 who have been discharged can get the benefit of these provisions as well as those now serving.
The premium rates under the old act were based on an interest rate of four per cent, whereas in the new act the rate is three and one-half per cent. The slight increase in premiums results from the reduction in interest. The same mortality table has been used.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Because of the reduction in interest received, the premium must be larger?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is exactly right. The rates on the whole are lower than those charged by the majority of insurance companies in Canada for nonparticipating insurance. The benefits under this proposed bill, which will be introduced as soon as possible-the bill is ready; I have it here-are more extensive in the case of widows of pensioners than they were under the old one. The rates are slightly lower than the standard rates. The ceiling is raised to $10,000, to be more or less comparable to the standard they have set in the republic to the south of us. On the whole we believe that this measure will be more popular than that which preceded it.
I shall go into details of the amount taken out, the number of insurance policies paid,
and all the other figures when we go into committee of the whole on the bill itself. I think that for the present I have given the house a reasonable explanation, a comparative explanation /as between the proposed measure and the measure we had in effect from 1920 to 1933.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Is it retroactive to the point where men were discharged at the early stages of the war?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Will the records as to the number of policies taken out, the premiums paid and the amounts paid out be available before the second reading of the bill?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. I should be glad to give them in committee in a few minutes.


Alan Webster Neill: Does this call for a medical examination ?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. That is the outstanding benefit of the returned soldier or veteran insurance as compared to ordinary insurance. The real benefit is that it does not call for medical examination except in very special cases. It would apply to the veterans of the old war who have enlisted in this war, but the aggregate amount must not exceed $10,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does it apply to the veterans' guard?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bradette in the chair.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not proposing to delay this resolution, because this is a matter which requires a good deal of study, and I hope hon. members who are returned soldiers will take a special interest in this measure. We on this side of the house have been pressing for soldier insurance for a long time. I think-indeed I am sure- that the bill is not too late, although I had hoped that it would have been introduced long ago. Similar legislation has been in effect in the United States for some considerable length of time: I do not know what the position is in Britain.
Will this apply to men who have been called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.
Veterans Insurance


Richard Burpee Hanson: They will have the benefit of this too?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Even
though they did not serve outside Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.
In reply to a question asked a minute ago by the hon. member for Yorkton, the number of policies issued under the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act is 48,320. Total amount of insurance under the act is S109.299.500. The number of death claims received up to March 31, 1944, was 6,366. The face value of the policies in respect of these death claims was SI0,088,920.81. Of the foregoing claims, 1,818, having a face value of 84,050,869.38, were settled under section 10 of the act. Section 10 applies where the dependent is awarded a pension. In addition to pensions the amount paid in settlement of the 1,818 claims was SI.794.698.95. Up to date the number of policies surrendered for cash was 14,647 and the face value of the policies was $34,591,453.33.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What percentages of the total value were surrendered?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have not worked that out, although I should be glad to do so. The cash surrender value was $5,544,603.08. Payment of premiums has been discontinued with respect to 12.982 policies of the face value of $29,785,787.07, and of these policies 958, having a face value of $2,136,881.62, continue in effect under the standard extended term provision typical of Canadian insurance policies.
There are now in force under the various provisions of the old act the following: original contracts 17.652, the amount being $37,413-744.S2. Reduced paid up insurance, 579 policies, amount being $628,751.73; the extended term provision, 958 policies, $2,136,881.62; disability provision, the special provision in the old act, 180 policies, value $274,574.82.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did the minister say there are no disability provisions in this scheme?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are disability provisions, but there is no medical examination required except in special cases.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the cost of administration to be paid by the taxpayers, or is it loaded in the premium?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think it is borne by the taxpayers, but I will look into that question.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a point which, I think, is of some importance.


Mr. QUELCH:: Am I correct in saying that all veterans after they are discharged or demobilized will be eligible to take out this insurance, no matter what their physical condition may be?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Victor Quelch: Even though they may be suffering from a complaint which has been termed of preenlistment origin?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I
do not think that question would apply at all. I believe that if one has served in the present war, and is a veteran under the definition of "veteran" in this bill namely, that "veteran" means any male or female who was engaged in service during the war and who has been discharged from such service, there is no medical examination applicable. Perhaps I should not be reading the bill, but "service" means service in the naval, military or air forces of Canada by any person while in receipt of either active service rates of pay or of permanent force rates of pay.


Mr. AVHITE:: Does this bill apply just to
veterans after they are discharged, or is there any provision to insure soldiers while they are actually in the army?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This has nothing whatever to do with inservice insurance. This is after-service insurance, post-discharge insurance, both for these 140,000 discharged up to now and those who will be discharged from now on.


George Stanley White: It does not in any way cover or protect anybody who is in the army?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not until he is discharged.


Victor Quelch: How long must a man have served before he is eligible?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not think eligibility is based at all upon length of service.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was consideration given to what the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough has alluded to, that is insuring the lives of the men now on service while they are still in the service?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is a separate principle.

War Exchange Conservation


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know it is; but has consideration been given to that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If this was being considered it would not be under our department. Our department deals with soldiers after discharge.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The bill
is limited to those w'ho have been discharged?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is quite correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has any
consideration been given to the other aspect, namely of those who are still in the service? I understand that the United States do that- under the Sparkman Act; is that it?


James Layton Ralston: No; a national insurance.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Under a
national life scheme applicable to soldiers on service. That of course would be a very important position for this country to take, unless it was found that the burden was so heavy that it was impossible, and I would not think that would be the case. I hope consideration is being given that aspect. Of course the minister will answer, I imagine, that those who die in the service are taken care of by pension and perhaps that is the answer. I am not sufficiently well versed in the matter to know whether that is the right answer. The pensions, I imagine, are reasonably adequate; at least I hold that view myself. That may be a very good reason why this legislation, or no legislation, is applicable to them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no feature of insurance of any kind whatever that has not received the most careful and sustained consideration both by the defence services and by the department of pensions. Consultations have been had with those who are expert in life insurance work and various suggestions and proposed solutions have been considered. I believe my hon. friend knows that our Canadian pension rates are higher than those in any other country. They average higher than those in the United States on a capitalization basis of from $5,000 to $6,000.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 170, to provide for the insurance of veterans by the Dominion of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



WAR EXCHANGE CONSERVATION ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (for the Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of bill No. 162, to amend the War Exchange Conservation Act, 1940.
Richard Burpee Hanson: We have not had a chance to read this bill.


James Layton Ralston: I do not want to have it suggested that L am pressing the matter. The bill is not very long, and I assumed that hon. members simply wanted to have it before them and to be sure that the French copy was read}'. It has been distributed for half an hour now.


Mr. ABBOTT:: It was available when the house opened.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It had not reached members at eleven o'clock. However, I will not hold it up. Before the motion is carried I see that section 1 refers to the repeal of certain sections of certain statutes. I have not had an opportunity to see what the legal effect is, and perhaps it will help to expedite matters if the parliamentary assistant will give an explanation of the bill. I was not here on the resolution stage and therefore I do not understand it. Perhaps he can give the explanation when we go into committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 1-Sections and schedule one repealed.
Douglas Charles Abbott: The explanation is quite simple. The committee will recall that in his budget speech the Minister of Finance announced that schedule 1 of the War Exchange Conservation Act would be repealed, and the relevant sections relating to that schedule. Schedule 1 set out various articles, commodities and goods the import of which from other than sterling area countries was prohibited. In other words, that schedule of the War Exchange Conservation Act specifically prohibited the importation into Canada of a long list of goods from countries other than sterling area countries, and the effect of section 1 is to repeal that schedule and sections relating thereto and to remove that prohibition.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are there still any prohibitions on importation from other than sterling areas? Is there any limit?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not under this act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is to say, these prohibitions under the War Ex-
War Exchange Conservation

change Conservation Act, 1940, and the other statutes which I assume were amending statutes, are now all lifted and there is free right of importation of these formerly prohibited goods?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The explanatory note says that the proposed amendments are in conformity with the resolution passed by the house. I have no doubt that is the case.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Section 1 is the key section, and it provides for the repeal of certain sections and schedule 1, which together constitute the prohibition of imports.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So that we are safe in understanding that the prohibition of imports of every kind is now repealed?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Under this act, yes. That is correct. There may be some prohibition of imports under other acts.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Put it this way: that the prohibition contained in the act of 1940 and the act of 1940-41, which I assume is an amendment, and the schedule to the act as amended in the statutes of 1940-41, are all lifted.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Schedule two amended.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the effect of this?


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is a technical amendment. It is really an amended definition of what are colloquially known- as artificial silk products. This provides for minor and purely technical amendments to the wording of the artificial silk items in schedule two of the war exchange conservation act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In other words it is a better description?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. The committee will see that it is now described as synthetic textile fibres or filaments rather than by the term artificial silk, that being considered a more accurate description of this type of product. Some classes might not come within the strict definition of artificial silk.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And that is true of all items.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That wording is substituted in all items of the customs tariff to which schedule two relates.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the general objective of section 2.


Douglas Charles Abbott: To substitute the words
"synthetic textile fibres or filaments" for the phrases "artificial silk, artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres", and "artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres produced by chemical processes" wherever these appear in the tariff items listed. That is the whole purpose of the section.
Mr. LOCKHART r There has been full collaboration between the producer parties vitally interested in this change?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that we have had any representation from the producers. I am advised that this is primarily a clarifying amendment made at the suggestion of the officials of the Department of National Revenue and the tariff board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Administrative?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is administrative, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Bill reported.
Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Haye the producers or
manufacturers who are vitally interested in this matter been made acquainted with the terms of this bill? This bill has been sprung on us very quickly. It may be of a purely technical nature, but there may be something in this bill which will vitally affect manufactured articles. I am just wondering whether or not the department has had any contact with the manufacturers or producers. I would suggest that third reading of this bill be held over for at least twenty-four hours to give interested parties an opportunity to indicate their stand in the matter. I had one representation made to me, to the effect that they had heard of something of this kind being advanced. I said that we had no bill. We had a resolution but I did not know anything about it. I do not wish to hold up the bill, but on the other hand I am not so sure that those whom it may affect have full knowledge of what it provides. The parliamentary assistant says that it is purely of a technical nature, but something may arise when it is applied to the business of those who produce these articles. Could the bill not be held over for twenty-four hours?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not believe there can be any confusion in the mind of the public, Mr. Chairman. The purposes of this bill were clearly indicated in the resolution. The main

Special War Revenue
purpose is to repeal the prohibition on certain imports, and the country and the trade generally know that is to take place. So far as the technical amendment to one of the sections is concerned, there is very little in that. The items referred to are now on the free list and they will continue to be. This is merely to clarify the description of a certain type of commodity. If the hon. member would prefer to have third reading held over for twenty-four hours I am sure there is no objection. But I cannot imagine that there could be any confusion in the minds of manufacturers or of the public as to the purpose of this bill.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I am not going to press for third reading being held over, but I had one inquiry as to the nature of the resolution. There seemed to be some ambiguity in the terms of the resolution; that is why one man spoke to me.


James Layton Ralston: There is no objection to
letting it stand over until to-morrow. The idea was to get it on that much farther. If my hon. friend has any objection at all and he would like to communicate with anybody-


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I should like to see it
stand over for one day.


Thomas Vien: Third reading, next sitting of the house.



SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (for the Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of bill No. 163, to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
Mr. G. R. BOUCHER (Carleton):: Before this bill is read the second1 time I think we should have a copy-


James Layton Ralston: They have all been distributed. I went to the Clerk's table and was assured that copies of this bill had been distributed at ten minutes after eleven o'clock this morning.


George Russell Boucher: It is now ten minutes to one. We have had three or four bills merely thrown at us without time to concentrate on them. I have no particular objection to the second reading now, but I think we should wait until this afternoon at least, until we have had time to look at the bill and see what is in it. I know we are in a hurry to close the debates in the house and get through with our work, but we have a responsibility to analyse what is put before us. I would urge the minister to withhold second reading of this bill until hon. members have had an opportunity to go through it and discuss it.


James Layton Ralston: We have no desire to press the matter, but I do want to make this point. I am assured by the officers of the house that this bill has been distributed. We have followed the rules. We have given notice that these bills were to be considered to-day. The bills are founded on the budget resolutions. I would1 hope that hon. members would cooperate as far as they can. Any point upon which clarification is required can be dealt with by the parliamentary assistant. Opportunity will be given for full discussion if we can proceed with the second reading. I ask my hon. friend if he will not assent to that method of procedure as a means of getting on rather, than just simply saying: Please do not proceed with second reading at all.


George Russell Boucher: Far be it from me not to assent; but I must say that because a bill was actually handed to me is no reason why I should1 give it a cursory glance and consent to it. I know that nobody has any objection to this bill getting second reading. I shall not raise any objection myself, but we have a responsibility to check over thoroughly all measures that come before us.


James Layton Ralston: I do not want to let that pass, because I submit to my hon. friend that in the discussion of the budget resolutions there was full opportunity of considering not only the principle but the details. I quite agree with my hon. friend that in regard to most legislation which is covered by very general resolutions there might be necessity for more opportunity to examine the bill, but I do not think that reason applies to bills of this kind.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE Canada G-rain Act-
Sod. Canadian government elevators, including equipment, $364,557.
Mr. WRIGHT:: When this matter was last under discussion, we were inquiring with respect to the new agreement concerning the government elevator at Fort William. I should Like to know how long this agreement is to run. Is it for three years or five years, or what is the term?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The proposed lease is for a period of five years from August 1,
4-f ^
Supply-Trade and Commerce



1944, and there is provision for renewing the lease for a further period of five years at the same rental and subject to the same conditions.


Percy Ellis Wright: For what period was the elevator leased previously; was it for five years?


James Angus MacKinnon: Last time the term was six years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National research council-
351. Salaries and other expenses of the national research council, $920,529.
Mr. KNOWLES:: I support wholeheartedly, as I believe all hon. members do, the vote of this amount of money for this work. The feeling of some of us, however, is that not enough money has been provided in past years for the work of the national research council. It does extremely important work, and a number of incidents have occurred during the course of the war which emphasize the value of that work. During the war period it has been brought out also that it would have been much better, not just in relation to the war but to further progress in all lines, if the research council had been given more funds and wider latitude to carry on work in what is sometimes referred to as pure or abstract research. I feel that the tendency has been to restrict the work of the research council on the basis that it ought to be dealing with things that would immediately produce returns in terms of dollars and cents. Those of us who have any knowledge at all of how people work in the scientific ' world realize that some of the most outstanding developments come about when men of science are given free rein to carry on such research as their investigations may lead them to. I understand, for example, that in the matter of synthetic rubber and other synthetics, concerning which there is a great deal of pressure at the present time, these things might have been developed much sooner if in the past it had been possible to carry on this type of research. So that in the years that lie ahead I hope we will realize that we are not squandering money if we make available all the necessary equipment and funds to permit this work to be carried on by the research council.
Things have been moving along pretty quickly this morning, and we did not bring down with us all the material we might have used in these discussions, but a short time ago I secured a return setting out salaries and other particulars in connection with the research council. I have not that return

before me, but my recollection is that it shows we are not paying our scientists at the research council sufficient to attract to that work the very best men it is possible to get. I should qualify that remark by saying that we have some of the best men. in the country in that organization, but they are there because they are prepared to make sacrifices to engage in this work in behalf of the country. I have some further comments to make. Mr. Chairman, so that perhaps you will call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock. Progress reported.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of bill No. 161, to provide for family allowances.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill which is now before the house for second reading is to provide for family allowances. The government's intention to introduce this measure was made known in the speech from the throne on January 27 of this year. The announcement in the speech from the throne was as follows:
The family and the home are the foundation of national life. To aid in ensuring a minimum of well-being to the children of the nation and to help gain for them a closer approach to equality of opportunity in the battle of life, you will be asked to approve a measure making provision for family allowances.
The resolution introducing the bill appeared in the Votes and Proceedings of June 20. The resolution was debated and the bill was introduced and given, its first reading on July 17. The main provision of the bill is as follows:
3. Subject as provided in this act and in regulations, there may be paid out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund from and after the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and forty-five, in respect of each child resident in Canada maintained by -a parent, the following monthly allowance:
(a)	in the case of a child less than six years of age, five dollars per month;
(b)	in the ease of a child six or more years of age but less than ten years of age, six dollars per month;
(c)	in the case of a child ten or more years of age but less than thirteen years of age, seven dollars per month;
(d) in the ease of a child thirteen or more years of age but less than sixteen years of age, eight dollars per month:

Family Allowances
Provided that the allowance payable shall, in respect of a fifth child maintained by the parent, be reduced by one dollar and in respect of a sixth child and a seventh dhild respectively so maintained, iby two dollars and in respect of an eighth child and each additional child respectively so maintained, by three dollars.
*/''The house will observe that the allowances for which provision is being made are payable according to sliding scales which vary according to- the ages and numbers of the children. It is obvious that as respects age, the cost of maintaining a child1 increases as the child grows; the amount required for food, for clothing, for accommodation in the home and later for schooling increases as the infant grows into childhood and through childhood toward maturity. On the other hand, it is also apparent that as a family increases in numbers there are many overhead costs which are not recurring. Many initial outlays in a home will serve, as time goes on, to meet the needs of younger members of the family, costs with respect to clothing, furnishings, and the like. There is much that accumulates that may be used again foT younger children. To mention a single item, school books that have served for certain members of the family will continue to serve for others. I cannot say too much about these things from personal experience of recent years, but I still have a recollection of my own childhood days and some of these things were apparent at that time.
Mr. MacNICOL:: You are a young man yet.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Quite right. My hon. friend may feel I am making provision in ajnple time.
/May I say that the principle of this bill is not new; it has been recognized in our income tax legislation and also with respect to dependents' allowances and veterans' and veterans' widows' pensions. I should like to cite exact references to the adoption of the principle of family allowances for dependent children.
The principle was recognized by the federal government in the Income War Tax Act in 1918. No allowance was made for children in the original act of 1917, but provision was made in the following year. In providing for pensions for veterans and veterans' widows, provision was made for allowances for children by order in council of September 1, 1918, and by act of parliament of September 1, 1919. In granting dependents' allowances to members of the armed forces provision for children has been made since the beginning of the present war.
Hon. members will recollect that during the last war provision for dependent children was not made by the state, dependent children
being taken care of, for the most part, by the patriotic fund. That fund was established under an act of parliament. The public made subscriptions to the fund, which were supplemented from the federal treasury. However, as the years have gone by the public have come to see clearly that obligations of that kind should not be taken care of by private contributions, but should be considered to be obligations of the state. When this war broke out, the government recognized that obligation immediately and provision for dependents' allowances was made by act of parliament through the war appropriation.
The principle was also recognized in the pre-war unemployment relief, in the grants that were made by municipalities and by provinces, as supplemented by grants from the federal treasury. The government is now proposing to take a further step. The present family allowances measure extends this accepted principle to families whose income is below the income tax paying level
At the present time a man earning $3,000, $5,000 or $10,000 a year receives what is in effect an allowance for each child through a reduction of his income tax. He is allowed to keep $108 a year for each child more than the taxpayer without children is allowed to keep. Family allowances will extend a similar benefit to those whose incomes are so low that they receive less than the full income tax allowance, and to those whose incomes are below $1,200 a year./L The adoption of family allowances means the recognition as the right of children of poor parents of what is already recognized as the right of children whose parents are in more fortunate circumstances.
The principle and its wider application cannot be made too clear. Already this parliament has recognized that, with respect to families, there is an obligation upon the state to assist in the upbringing of children. This has been done in the interests of the parents and the family itself, but more particularly in the interests of the children. But, up to the present time, that obligation has been recognized only with respect to the more fortunate in our country, those who already have an income large enough to be taxable and to entitle them to exemptions according to the number of children in the family. In other words, where the need has been least it has already been recognized. The purpose of this bill is to recognize a similar obligation where the need is obviously greater than it is in the other cases.//
I should perhaps say at once it is intended that both those who already benefit by the armedi forces dependents' allowance, and war
Family Allowances

pensions, are to benefit by this measure. It will be appreciated by the house that where provision has already been made for dependents of the armed forces and war pensioners, that has been done because of the sacrifice which the family has had to undergo, and which nothing can, in any adequate way, compensate for. It is a special service that has been rendered, and it would be, I think, unfair that the state should not continue to recognize, as something quite apart, the service rendered by those who have given their utmost or their all to fight the battles in the defence of their country and for the defence of freedom.
May I speak at once of the provisions of the bill with respect to dependents' allowances. Family allowances are already being received by income taxpayers in the form of the $108 allowance for children. Income taxpayers who receive the full allowance of $108 per child will not benefit from the family allowance. Those who will benefit are, first, married persons with children having a total income of less than $1,200. Persons with such incomes have considerably less than the " real income " of families of men in the armed forces; secondly, married persons with children having an income above $1,200 but not high enough above that figure to make their tax equal to $108 per child. In most cases, therefore, they would still have less "real income" than the families of service men. In other words the family allowances will give to families with low incomes smaller allowances than are now received by the families of service men or by the families of income taxpayers. Since the benefits of family allowances will go almost exclusively to families with lower incomes than the familes of service men, they cannot be said to discriminate in favour of those at home, particularly as family allowances will be paid in addition to dependents' allowances. Family allowances will also give an additional sense of security to service men. On discharge, they will continue to receive allowances for their children, although the allowances will be on a smaller scale than the dependents' allowances paid while they are on active service.
A word now as to the relationship of family allowances under the act to allowances for children of pensioners. The income, including income in kind, of married service men would place them in the income tax paying category if they were subject to tax. Pensioners, on the other hand, do not, in most cases, receive pensions large enough to bring them up to the civilian income tax paying level. In other vords, pensioners without outside income generally fall into the income group that
I Mr. Mackenzie King.]
family allowances are designed to benefit. This is true even if the pension allowance for children is added, except perhaps in the case of large families. Consequently there is every reason for paying such pensioners family allowances in addition to the allowance made for children in the pension. In a sense pensioners with enough outside income to pay income tax already receive two allowances for their children, one in the pension, and the other the income tax allowance for children. They, like all income taxpayers, would have to offset the family allowance against the income tax allowance for children. In other words, the payment of the family allowance to pensioners would benefit only pensioners whose incomes were too low to be taxable or who, if their incomes are taxable, do not now receive the full $108 tax allowance.
In order to bring home to hon. members the national significance of this measure I should like to give to the house a brief statistical picture of the problem of family maintenance, by showing the proportion of families who benefit from income tax allowances and the distribution of children in the total population.
The number of children in Canada under sixteen years of age is estimated at approximately 3,500,000. The number of families of such children is estimated at approximately 1,500,000. Over half of these families benefit in whole or in part from income tax allowances for children. The families with the lowest incomes do not benefit from income tax allowance.
families it is estimated that one-third, or about 500,000, receive the full income tax allowance; one-third receive a partial benefit; and one-third receive nothing. Well over half the children get little or no benefit from the income tax allowance, and they belong to the families where the need is greatest. It is probable that there are considerably more children in the low income third of Canadian families than in the middle group, which receives partial benefit under the income tax, and that this group of families contains more children in turn than the high income third which draws full benefits!'
I draw attention particularly to the following statement. : According to the 1941 census, of the gainfully employed, 48 per cent are single; 39 per cent of the married or widowed have no children under sixteen; and 40 per cent of those with children under sixteen have only one child. What this means is that 84 per cent of the children in Canada under sixteen are dependent upon only 19 per cent of the gainfully employed. In other words, the major burden of raising the next generation

Family Allowances
and perpetuating the Canadian nation falls on less than one-fifth of our working population.
Next to defending our country from external foes, this one-fifth of our working population are performing the greatest of all national services by ensuring the survival of the nation. It is only fair that the financial burden of this national service should be shared by all.
It has always been a part of the policy of the party to which I belong to do as much as possible to further equality of opportunity. We all realize that, while it may be said that men are bom free and equal, nevertheless they are far from being equal in their capacities; and in many ways they are not really free. But what reformers of all ages have sought to effect has been greater equality of opportunity so that, generally speaking, whatever may be the handicaps of those who are born into life's struggles, they may have as much in the way of opportunity as possible.
The figures that I have just given to the house will surely make it apparent that, among the working population of our country having large families, there is not, so far as the parents are concerned or so far as the children are concerned, anything approaching equality of opportunity in the battle of life. We have grown, so accustomed to these differences in class and in opportunity, grown so accustomed to differences in many directions, that we have come to take too many of these things for granted, as if they were something that should be perpetuated instead of changed. But the new order of things is going to take very little for granted; it is going to look into the heart of existing situations and discover where the fault lies. I submit that, when we realize that, of those who are gainfully occupied, 48 per cent are single, 39 per cent of the married or widowed have no children under sixteen, and 40 per cent of those with children under sixteen have only one child, if there is to be anything approaching equality of opportunity in the battle of life, certainly, for those who have families, who are carrying on the work of the world and trying to raise their families at the same time, there is something needed in the way of recognition of an obligation on the part of the state. As I have pointed out, 84 per cent of the children in Canada under sixteen are dependent upon only 19 per cent of the gainfully employed!
^\Vhat opportunity have the children of families in humble circumstances with the whole of the battle of life ahead of them where you have differences of this kind existing? It is part of the business of the state
to seek to help remove those differences and to bring about as close an approach as possible to equality of opportunity,^
I know it will be said, at once, that if it had not been for the struggle of life which so many men have gone through, they would never have amounted to anything; that those of us who have been successful and prosperous have something in ourselves which is perhaps more worth while than the qualities found in others, that we have succeeded because of some inherent quality, that our success is due to our own efforts. Far be it from me to decry any achievement by way of struggle. I believe as strongly as any man that strength is developed by struggle^TThere is no doubt in the world that many' of the ablest men we have to-day would never have come to the fore, but for their own struggles and those of their parents before them. But I wish also to draw attention to this fact, that that statement takes no account of the thousands upon thousands who have perished in the course of or because of the early struggle of life, of the many that, from malnutrition, from poor housing, from insufficient clothing, from other causes which have resulted from circumstances that they themselves or their parents before them in no way were responsible for, have had to go through life with health more or less impaired, without having had opportunities for the development of their physical, their mental, or-for that matter- their spiritual beings, but have had to struggle on as best they could from year to year in the battle of life.
The purpose of this measure is to try to help to remove existing injustices of the kind in so far as the state is justified in taking the necessary steps to that end. The measure has this further to be said on its behalf, that it is in the general interest rather than in the interest of any particular class. What most of us forget is that, more and more, we are all coming to be dependent on each other, that no man liveth to himself, that no community liveth to itself, that no nation liveth to itself, that we are members one of another, and that, if any part of the community suffers because of subnormal conditions, sooner or later other parts of the same community will suffer likewise. You cannot have one section of the nation undernourished, ill-clothed and unequal to its daily tasks, and not have the rest of the nation sooner or later suffer as a consequence^/^
This measure proceeds on the assumption that children are an asset to the state and that, in considering the resources of the state, human resources are of much more importance
Family Allowances

than material resources. We talk a good deal about the conservation of natural resources. We have in the past devoted most of our time to a consideration of how the natural resources of the country may be conserved and developed. We have our scientific departments for industrial research in order that we may develop industry in ways which will enable us to compete successfully with other nations, and it matters not whether the purpose is the production of munitions of war or is related to other kinds of production. We recognize that it is desirable to conserve material resources and to develop them as largely as possible.
Come to other resources of the country. We have research departments to study the diseases of animals; we have departments of the government concerned largely with the conservation of our agricultural resources and their development, and we rightly regard this as an essential activity of government. Take the plant life of the country. Much thought goes into research on matters which relate to diseases of plants and means of combatting them. We seek to preserve the health of plants; we study the means of nourishing them and adapting them to varying conditions. 'Ht is only recently, however, that the world seems to have wakened up to the realization that, of all resources, human resources are the most important, and that, if scientific research, conservation and development are justified in these other branches of the national economy, 30, too, they are in relation to human life,^
This measure is intended to emphasize this truth, that what the nation needs above everything else if it is to maintain itself and strengthen itself is to have a healthy, strong and vigorous population, not a population any percentage of which may be bearing the permanent marks of malnutrition, or of the lack of other forms of necessary care,r We need a strong, healthy and intelligent citizenry. If the war has shown one thing more than another, it has bornq out the importance of a revitalized citizenry^' I do not wish to emphasize too strongly some of the things the war has revealed, but there is one which it is important to bring to the attention of the house. It has already been mentioned. I refer to the number of rejections in the army.
I have in my hand a statement which I requested from the Department of National Defence of the percentages of rejections among those presenting themselves for enlistment for general service and those reporting under the N.R.M.A. for military training. These percentages are based on the figures of intake and rejections as reported) by the

military districts in daily and weekly telegrams. They do not agree exactly with final tabulations but are sufficiently accurate for the present purpose. I am sorry they are only for two periods, but they are sufficient in that connection to give an adequate illustration,^ In the six months from April to September, 1942, in all the military districts in Canada, 31-8 per cent were rejected of those who had enlisted for general service, and 21T per cent of those who had been called up under the N.R.MA. In other words, 27-6 per cent of the numbers were rejected as being unequal to the tasks which participation in war would have involved. For the six months from January to June, 1944, of those who had been enlisted for general service 39-3 per cent were rejected, and of those called up under the N.R.M.A. 65-6 per cent. The combined rejections amounted to 52-4
explanation will be found in the figures I have already given the house in regard to the large proportion of the population of this country, belonging to larger families where they have not had, in many cases, the same opportunities for nourishment, care and development that have been afforded those in smaller families.^The more the subject is studied, the more, I believe, that truth will be brought out.
<^fhe government, at different times, has set out its post-iwar policy. I should like to give this measure its true place by pointing out that it is a part of the government's post-war policy of reconstruction in the large sense of the word_.//In making provision for the postwar period, the government gave its first attention to the all-important question of demobilization and reestablishment of those in the armed forces. There has been created at this session of parliament a Department of Veterans' Affairs which will give special care to all that pertains to the work of demobilization and reestablishment. Another department was created a little later on, the Department of Reconstruction. That department will have to do more particularly with those aspects of our national economy which relate to the transition back from a state of war to a state of peace, in which the industries of the country will be transformed to meet peacetime needs for consumption and employment. Then there are as a part of government postwar policy additional measures of social security to meet the hazards that rise in social life and in industry. The purpose is to give special attention to human welfare and health. Within the last twenty-four hours, a bill was

Family Allowances
assented to in this parliament related to national health and welfare. Under this new department of government, special attention will be given to all those questions that relate to social and economic hazards. The measure before the house at the moment will come for administration under the Department of National Health and Welfare. In other words, ./we have as a part of the government's reconstruction policy three broad divisions: one related to demobilization and reestablishment; another to reconstruction, dealing with the economic aspects thereof, particularly employment; and a third dealing with human wellbeing and health.
This measure to provide family allowances relates immediately to all three. With respect to demobilization and reestablishment I venture to say that one of the acts of this parliament which will be most welcome to the veterans of the war will be the one which this house is considering to-day, a measure which makes provision for the children of all families in a manner that helps to safeguard their economic and social needs.^In regard to reconstruction, dealing with The matter in its physical aspects as it relates to production and employment, the expenditure of . the money paid out for family allowances will create a demand for goods and, thereby, a demand for labour for the production of those things that are in daily use in all parts of the country. The importance of the stimulus to employment cannot, I think, be too greatly emphasized^7 The one supreme object of all our work of reconstruction is to prevent the possibility of lack of employment by seeing that we have maximum production and, as a consequence, a large national income in this country. The money that will be voted for the purposes of the bill will find its way into a demand for commodities or services that are part of the essentials of life, and as such will create employment on a vast scale and help to maintain employment at times when there might otherwise be difficulty in having it maintained./frla. other words, this measure should prove an instrument that will help to prevent anything like the depressions that have followed in previous periods in the wake of war. In addition, it will of course play an all-important part in furthering the well-being and welfare of the citizens of the country^
It might as well be recognized that, among other things, the war has 'brought to the fore very strongly the injustices that exist in human society and has compelled men and women to think deeply on the social problems of life and the causes of those injustices, and has made them feel that we must have a new order. That there is a changing order emerging in the world as a consequence of the war, is more or less obvious; but when we talk about demanding a new order of things either we mean what we say or we do not. If we mean what we say we will see that the new order places its emphasis on life rather than upon wealth. The new order will place its emphasis on human well-being rather than on material possessions, and we cannot, I think, too soon appreciate the shift in emphasis that is taking place and will continue to take place to a greater extent as the years go by. This will be particularly true when the men who have been serving their country overseas at the risk of their lives return to look for new and better conditions.
The new order seeks to shift the emphasis from the sacredness of possession to the sacredness of life; to weigh against each other the relative values of personality and its rights, and property and its rights; to compare standards of living with standards of trade; and to contrast human resources with material resources. It seeks to recognize industry as a public service and to divert attention from individual self-interest to community wellbeing. It seeks to make clear the interdependence of health and efficiency on the industrial economy and social welfare, and the inevitable bearing of existing conditions upon posterity and progress. This is where the emphasis from now on is going to be given more and more in all matters that are discussed in democratic assemblies.
Some are asking, why is it that this measure comes forward at this time? Why were not all these measures of social security thought of years ago? One might as well ask why, when the British North America Act was being considered, some provision was not made in the act at that time for old age pensions, unemployment insurance and these many other social measures? The answer is very simple. Conditions were very different in Canada in 1867 from what they are in 1944. Conditions were very different in all parts of the world a hundred years ago, fifty years ago, twenty-five years ago, from what they are to-day. The world has been shrinking. Not merely nations but continents have been drawn into competition with each other in a manner that was never even dreamt of a few decades ago. The regime of hand tools where competition took place as between individuals in their own particular homes and crafts has given place to the regime of machines where competition is not as between human beings and their skills but as between what huge investments of capital internationally combined are able to effect in the competition between different countries. All this has

Family Allowances

brought about an entirely different social and industrial order, and a social order which is now crying out for remedy of the injustices that have been created as a part of it.
Let me say this at once: I do not wish to be understood in what I am saying as inveighing for a moment or in any way against one class or another. I am not speaking in the interests of labour as against the interests of capital. I am speaking in the interests of both. The conditions which confront the world to-day make it impossible for employers any more than for employees in any one country to avoid periods of depression, to avoid financial crises, to avoid the consequences of drought in one part of the world or famine in another part and the many causes which contribute to the closing down of industries. These things are as much a peril to the employing class as they are to their employees-not as much, no, I should not say that, but they are a peril to both. Capital, however, can wait; labour cannot wait. Capital can find other means of investment; labour cannot. Labour to-day cannot change quickly from one occupation to another; capital is mobile; labour is not mobile to-day. And when I speak of labour I speak of it in the broad sense of the word as including all classes of labour, whether it belongs to industries in the cities or is employed in the country. In other words, our most difficult problems are human problems; they have become world problems, and they have to be dealt with in a different way today from the way they have been in any prior period of the history of the world.
If we are going to save degradation of the standard of life we have to fortify the position of the industrial classes through the agency of the state by measures such as the one that is being brought before the house to-day. May I point out that, in the speech from the throne of last year, the government drew attention to the fact that it was essential to-day to have what is known as a minimum standard of life, a minimum standard of human welfare and of social security, not for one class only but for all classes./^T?o-day with the world economy what it has become we can no longer afford to talk in terms of classes; we have to think in terms of our common humanity and our common obligations to each other, and the necessity of caring for the well-being of all if the well-being of each is to be preserved. Hence I say that a minimum standard of life, something that will secure, to all, at least enough to live on and for heads of families enough to bring up a 
family on, under decent conditions, is essential if there is not to be developed much that is bad in social conditions-//
This house has been discussing the clearance of slums. What is it that creates slums? Slums are created by members of families crowding into certain areas, areas that are the least desinable in which people should live. Why do families crowd there? They crowd there because those are the districts where the rents are lowest. It is only in such parts that a good many of those who have large families can hope to be able to find the rent small enough that they can pay it, in order to have a roof over their heads. Well, if we are going to clear the slums we shall have to make some provision whereby the condition will not continue to exist, in which men, heads of families, who are willing to work, ready to work and do work, do not have enough income to bring up a family. And that is the position to-day with respect to large numbers of the people in this country as well as in other countries, perhaps less in this country, but certainly existing here as well as in others. If, in some way, means can be found to see that the worker who has a family, if he is willing to work, will be able to get sufficient to bring up his family in a decent way, then we can help to solve the slum problem and we will help at the same time to solve one aspect of the housing problem. To-day you find, from all quarters, appeals to the federal government to supplement private investment by government grants and government subsidies for the purpose of providing housing. We cannot escape it. We are making provision for that very thing in this parliament at this time. Why are we doing so? We are doing it because we have a large number of families, whose heads at the rate of remuneration they are paid, cannot make enough money to secure the adequate housing they need for their families.
Money paid out in family allowances will go toward helping to secure better homes for the people. The persons who receive this money will be the first to think of how they can use it to the best advantage of their families.
And just here may I say a word at once about what I know is in the minds of a great many people/^ft will be said, Oh, yes, it is all right to help those who are willing to help themselves, but this money in large part is going to people who will not know how to use it, who will waste it, who will spend the money on pleasure, possibly spend it on drink. Well, may I point out in the first place, that

Family Allowances
any test that is a test should be applied to all classes in society. And I would ask where, any more, are the statistics which prove that money possessed by those in humble circumstances is more largely spent on drink and pleasure and on illicit ways of living than is the case among those who already have so much money that they do not know what to do with	resent very strongly in the
name of the humble poor any kind of a challenge


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen opposite may laugh at the mention of the words "humble poor" if they desire to do so.


Mr. McGREGOR:: Why don't you bring it in now and not wait for another year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a very
bright interruption. I have already answered that question but my hon. friend was asleep. He has only just wakened up. It was only when I began to say a word about the humble poor and their circumstances that hon. gentlemen opposite began to hoot and to laugh. That roused him. I tell them, and I tell them quite frankly-I understand this measure is going to be challenged-that if the basis of challenge is going to be on the question of how money is used by people in humble circumstances, as against how money is used by those who are. fortunate enough to have exemptions on their income tax as allowances for children we shall have it out to a finish on that very subject.
^There is no instinct of man or beast stronger than the parental instinct. All nature tells us that animal life seeks to cherish and protect its own. Nothing is truer of human v>
beings than that mothers and fathers think first of their children and how they can give their children opportunities in life better than they themselves have had.//Yn support of what I have just said may I point to the motive that has brought to this country a large proportion of those who have come from other lands. They have nearly all come not so much because they wished merely to better their own conditions but in order that their children might have a better chance in life than they have had. They have been, most of them, in very humble circumstances, but they have been pleased to come to a land where there was opportunity to give their children chances they themselves never had. Many of them came from the countries of Europe to get away from the perpetual fear of war. Many of them have come from the British isles to get away from class distinctions,
100-335i
and the bar to improved conditions that so often goes with them. A great many have had in their breasts something of the sentiment cherished so strongly by Robert Burns when he wrote "a man's a man for a' that." It ill becomes anyone in this day to question how people, simply because they are in humble circumstances, are likely to discharge the greatest responsibility of their lives, namely that of looking after their own children. We are told, "Oh, we want to look after the children, but we would like to do it some other way." In other words, they would like to continue the old-fashioned method of seeing that something is done for others rather than permitting others to do things for themselves. That ia a paternalistic attitude which is also contrary to the spirit of the present time. It savour of charity, and charity has become a nause-'ating thing to many who have had to submit to it in order to eke out an existence. The new order is not going to have things done as charity. What is to be done will be done as a matter of right. There will always be a place for charity; there will always be an opportunity and the necessity to help one's neighbour, but when it comes to these great social questions under a condition of society which dooms large numbers of people to a lifetime of penury, at the same time enabling others vastly to increase their incomes, then a searching analysis of the causes of differences becomes necessary.
Everyone knows that conditions of society to-day are such as to permit those who already have great possessions to become possessors of much more, while they serve to take away from those who have very little even that which they have. I have heard men boast about the positions they have achieved in industry and affairs. They may be justified in so doing in so far as what they have obtained has been the result of their own exceptional abilities, but I would ask all such how any man to-day could achieve anything in the way of great increase of wealth were it not for what the state itself does to make that possible. The state, by maintaining law and order, by its assistance to invention, by the facilities it provides in the way of transportation, communication, markets; by the community values it creates, the unearned increments it makes possible, all these and much more tend to help those1 who already possess much to acquire more, and at the same time take away something of what is possessed in very small measure by other members of society. More and more it is being recognized that present conditions; enable some persons to make great fortunes and prevent others from gaining even a fair
Family Allowances


Mr. HOMUTH:: What countries?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Australia, New Zealand; I could name a dozen in Europe.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Most of them have
abandoned it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is quite wrong, they have not. I can give ' fuller particulars a little later on. At any rate I challenge my hon. friend to deny what I have just said as to the effect of the expenditure of money by families, as to whether that of itself will not create a demand for commodities.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I certainly will deny that it will give higher wages.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We in this country depend very largely on foreign markets. We are doing all we possibly can to help to secure foreign markets when the war is over. But we cannot tell how successful we may be. There are many in this country who put strong emphasis on the domestic market. For my part, I put emphasis on both.
I think we should have as large a foreign market and as large a domestic market as it is possible to have. To the advocates of a domestic market I would point out that practically all the money that will be spent on family allowances will be spent to purchase commodities that are produced or manufactured in our country.
A We must also consider the effect of this measure upon life in the rural communities. Family allowances will provide equal benefit to farm families and help to make possible a closer approach to equal opportunities for farm children. For the most part our social services have come to be centred in the urban communities, in our towns and cities. So far as social services generally are concerned the rural parts have been left very much to shift for themselves. We know that the position in many rural homes is very difficult. Children used to be considered an asset by their parents through being able to help with work in different ways, but to-day a large number of children may come to be more or less of a financial liability because of changed conditions. This is particularly so in cities. But certain it is that the balance has been against the rural communities with respect to social services, welfare, education and the
like. Expenditures under family allowances will be used by the people in the rural areas to help to improve the health and the education of their children, help to gain for them more comfortable and sanitary homes and many opportunities that they otherwise would not have. Especially will this be so in poorer agricultural districts, and in years of poor crop and crop failure. Combined with the floor under farm prices, family allowances will give real social security to rural Canada for the first time in our history.^
Mutual aid is a principle that this parliament has accepted, and accepted in a large and splendid way. We have voted something like two billion dollars for purposes of mutual aid as between nations. As soon as the war is over I think we should apply more and more the principle of mutual aid to meeting the needs that arise within our own country. The doctrine of mutual aid is the antithesis of the doctrine of force. Mutual aid is a way of bringing about results by considering other persons perhaps a little more than one considers one's self. This measure is based on the mutual aid principle. Family allowances are a form of mutual aid. We are recognizing that the weak may be weaker unless they are assisted by the strong, that instead of having our social and industrial organization such that the weak are serving the interests of the strong to the exclusion very often of their own interests, we will have the strong assisting to bear the burdens of the weak. I should perhaps point out that the moneys used for purposes of mutual aid to help win the war, have enabled Canada to maintain total employment, fulfil her obligations of a total war effort, and thereby give employment to large numbers of persons who in turn on receipt of wages have created still further demands.
This brings me to the question of the cost. Some hon. members will say that this measure is going to cost a lot of money. I might ask the house how much this war is costing, how much we are actually spending each day for the war. I doubt very much if the cost of this measure will bear comparison with expenditure on the war as it is being incurred, and so largely met, by this country to-day. It is about'two week's expenditure, in fact. If it is going to help to carry the country safely through the period of readjustment and for years to come serve to avoid a large measure of unrest that otherwise will be inevitable, if in its place it is going to bring contentment and at the same time help to develop a strong and vigorous nation, I think we will be able to count the cost as not being in any way excessive.
Family Allowances


Karl Kenneth Homuth: There are others who will answer for him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says that he will answer for him?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I said that there are others who will answer for him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If any one who answers for him repeats the statement he has made, that this is a measure of bribery, I shall immediately ask Mr. Speaker to ask frim to withdraw the statement and he will be obliged to withdraw it. As my hon. friend well knows, a statement of the kind cannot be made on the floor of this house or if made would have to be withdrawn. Anyone who purports to be taking a responsible part in the political affairs of this country should not rnake a statement outside the house that he would not dare to make in the house.
Anyone who claims that the motive behind this measure is bribery in any form whatever, especially after mention of the measure in the speech from the throne, first of all reflects upon every hon. member of this house- that I wish to have clearly understood. Such

an accusation is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate. It reflects more upon the integrity of Canadian citizens. When it is suggested that the people of Canada will be governed in their appreciation of the laws of this country by bribes offered to them, a pretty serious charge is being made and one I believe that will be deeply resented by the people of Canada.
I resent that charge very strongly, and in a personal way. I have given my life, the greater part of it, to seeking to improve the conditions of the people of this country. When I left the university of Toronto, fifty years ago, instead of following the profession of law, which my father was anxious I should, I took up post-graduate studies of social problems because I was especially interested in the conditions of the people and hoped to be able to serve them in my day by an understanding of their problems. I shall not detail the steps I took to further my studies, but I would point out that they were all in the direction of seeing what could be done to improve conditions that were injurious to the well-being of the great masses of the people.
When I gave up the idea of an academic career and came to Ottawa in 1900 to start a Department of Labour in Canada, I was not seeking to bribe the Canadian people. I was seeking to establish an agency of government which through the years would tell more and more for the betterment of the conditions of the people of Canada. When after eight years spent in building up a Department of Labour and seeking to further social legislation through that department, I resigned as its permanent head to contest a Conservative riding and to enter into parliament, I was not taking up social questions with a view to finding a way into parliament. I was seeking to get into parliament in order that my voice might be heard in parliament in regard to social problems and conditions which I wished to see improved. My voice in this parliament, as hon. members know who were here from 1908 to 1911, was raised as opportunity presented itself on behalf of improving the conditions of the people. I need only mention anti-sweating legislation to indicate the very first step I had taken to better conditions of the working people and prevent men from having to work for wages inadequate to enable them to bring up and care for their families.
When I was defeated in 1911 and out of parliament for a time, did I give up my interest in social questions and in the well-being of the people? I have in my hand a book of which I am proud, Industry and Humanity. The book is a study in the principles under-

Family Allowances
lying industrial reconstruction. The book was written at intervals in that period when I was not in parliament but was engaged on industrial research and in furthering maximum production in war industries. It was written in the hope that there might be found within its pages a statement of principles which, if applied after the war, might help to remove the causes of wars and be a means of improving the conditions of the people. The principles which parliament has been applying in this very session, and in preceding sessions in the social legislation that has been brought down are all in accord with what is set out in that volume. If hon. members would read a chapter entitled "Principles Underlying Health" they will find the advocacy of a national minimum standard of life, the advocacy of social security, the advocacy of the very measure we are introducing in parliament at this time.
I have been in parliament now for twenty-eight years. Shortly after I came back into parliament nearly twenty-five years ago, almost the first measure, if I recollect aright, in which I interested myself was one to see that the pension rights of which men working on the railways of this country had been deprived were restored to them, though it took a period of from ten to twelve years to bring that about. From that time I have sought where-ever opportunity offered to further one social measure after another. I call to witness the measures of the old age pension, unemployment insurance, and a great number of other social measures now upon our statutes.
I mention these things in order to make clear that my interest in these matters has not been in the way of seeking to bribe the people of this country. The same statements however I heard made in regard to the very measures I have just mentioned, the measures related to old age pensions and unemployment, insurance. I think the sooner that that term bribery as applied to social legislation is dropped, the better it will be for all concerned.
Having given the greater part of my life to an honest endeavour to improve the lot of my fellow men in Canada, I do not propose now that I am in my seventieth year to begin a career of bribery to further this end. I have gained the confidence I have from the people of this country, not from any thought in their minds that I was seeking to bribe them in measures for which I have always stood. I have gained the support of the people of this country in larger measure than any other man in the public life of Canada in this past quarter of a century. I have remained in public life and gained the confidence of the people of
Canada because they knew that I was standing for principles and polices in which I believed, and that I would stand and fight for them at every opportunity that presented itself. I have fought for measures of social security and national well-being in season and out of season, in parliament and out of parliament, in this country and in other countries. I have fought for them wherever the opportunity presented itself, and win or lose in the future, I intend to fight for them to the end of my days. When that moment comes there will not be any thought of bribery associated with my name in this country, if I can leave nothing else to my fellow men, I will at least leave to my party and to my country an honourable name.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on the second reading of this measure I desire to make an observation or two based upon some of the remarks which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made in the latter part of his speech this afternoon. I would like to say to him and to the house that neither he nor any other man in this house can properly lay claim to a monopoly of the finer feelings which the Prime Minister expressed, or the social philosophy which I fancy is developed very highly in the minds of the membership of this house about which he generalized so freely this afternoon. These are not held by the Prime Minister alone; neither is honesty of purpose a monopoly of the Prime Minister. There is not one hon. member but who desires to leave this house with a name as honored and honourable as that of the Prime Minister.
I purposely let the Prime Minister conclude his remarks without a single interruption; in this connection he has always shown great courtesy to me, and I ask his party to follow his example in this, as I know that in other things they slavishly follow it.
The Prime Minister made some remarks with reference to the national leader of our party, though he did not mention him by name. This is not the first occasion upon which he has attempted to pick a quarrel with the leader of the Progressive Conservative party.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is hard to get at him.


Thomas Vien: Order.


Gordon Graydon: If hon. members across the way want a rough-and-tumble fight, I have no objection, but I thought we were trying this afternoon to discuss a matter of grave national importance, and it is my desire
Family Allowances

to deal with the subject in the appropriate way. But every time the Prime Minister hears or thinks of John Bracken his blood pressure immediately rises. Perhaps it is good for his health that John Bracken is not in this house, because I am afraid that if our leader were closer to him the Prime Minister would suffer a collapse. Time after time he has talked about John Bracken taking a seat in the House of Commons; but from the information I get, which comes direct from the Province of Saskatchewan and from no less a person than the premier of that province, yesterday, the problem is not now how John Bracken is to get a seat in this chamber, but how the Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada who sits right here is to retain the seat he has.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He has a seat here now; Bracken has not.


James Garfield Gardiner: We do not agree with the premier of Saskatchewan.


Gordon Graydon: The Prime Minister has done a great deal of very favourable advertising for the leader of our party, and for that we are extremely grateful. I hope that he will not desist from these tactics in the days that lie ahead. It is only another evidence, of course, of the growing strength of the leader of our party that the Prime Minister of Canada is paying so much attention to him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is afraid-


Gordon Graydon: Now I know I have struck a tender spot, but I think the Prime Minister may as well sit down. Of course if he is making a point of order I am prepared to give place to him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is just this-


Gordon Graydon: But if it is an interruption, I will ask the Prime Minister to take his seat.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a point of order. I would ask his honour the Speaker in what connection my hon. friend has the right to bring in a question of Saskatchewan elections.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If he is trying to bring Saskatchewan to the fore in this discussion, I would ask him to look at what happened in Saskatchewan to his party in the recent ejection.


Gordon Graydon: I knew that that reference would bring the Prime Minister to his feet. There is, I suppose, no touchier point I could have raised this afternoon.
Turning to subjects which may not be quite so controversial, I notice that when he made reference to the return of the armed forces he talked about this bill as one which would give them a great lift and a better deal. I hope he did not mean that what we intend to do for the armed forces for their rehabilitation in this country is to give them jobs which are below the income tax level in Canada. That is what this bill actually calls for.
More than that, when the Prime Minister talks about the little man and the small income earner in Canada, we must not forget that what he has provided in this bill is help for children who are under the age of sixteen, while in the higher income brackets of this country allowance is made for children under the age of eighteen, and in some instances, twenty-one. So when my hon. friend and colleague here interrupted the Prime Minister to ask him why he did not bring this bill into operation earlier than July 1, 1945, the Prime Minister at that stage set himself up as the political pugilist for the poor, as I understood from his language. Naturally my hon. friend, who has perhaps had a closer contact with the poor of Canada than almost any other man in the House of Commons, for he came up from that class himself, smiled at the Prime Minister, not because of the reference to the humble poor, but because of the man who is setting himself up as the monopolistic champion of that class of Canadian citizens.
I wish now to say one other word with respect to the position of the humble poor of whom the Prime Minister spoke. The right hon. gentleman said in his remarks that of course the poor people, those in the lower income groups, ought to know how to spend their money just as well as those in the upper groups. In fact he said, I believe, that they might be a little more capable of spending their money than those who were financially better off.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They have to be more careful.


Gordon Graydon: With that I am in perfect agreement. Nobody will hear me make any statement or raise any argument such as was anticipated by the Prime Minister. As a matter of fact the difficulty I see with the Prime Minister's argument is this, that

Family Allowances
although he speaks very appealingly on the subject of the people being able to look after themselves, he has included in this very bill a section which states as follows:
5. The allowance shall be applied by the person receiving the same exclusively towards the maintenance, care, training, education and advancement of the child-
Then comes the joker-and it is particularly a joker in view of the words used by the Prime Minister when he was championing the humble poor a few minutes ago:
-and, if the minister or such officer as is authorized by regulations in that behalf is satisfied that the allowance is not being so applied, payment thereof shall ibe discontinued or made to some other person or agency.
I ask the Prime Minister, if this is to be done with people who are receiving less than $1,200 a year, why is it not applied to those he talked of who are above the $1,200 level and are getting allowances on income tax? That of course is completely destructive of the argument which the Prime Minister now proposes.
Now I want to make a few observations with respect to the measure itself. Let me make this clear at the very outset of my remarks. It will summarize our position as a party with respect to this measure.
I wonder if I may have some order in the house. I have continually had to speak to the Minister of Pensions and National Health; I have done it always in a very friendly manner, but may I say to him that I do not want to have to call him any more "the official interrupter". I should like to see that term banished from the records of the house, and he can help me in this matter.
Mr. Speaker, we support wholeheartedly and without reservation the purpose and object of this bill, namely, the raising of the standard of family life in the lower income groups and the strengthening of all family life in this country, but we are convinced that this bill in its present form cannot achieve that purpose and object. We shall give our reasons for such belief. We propose to offer another and better way of achieving that purpose and object. In simple language, there is where onr party stands.
That there are breadwinners in Canada whose wages and income total less than $1,200 a year reveals a condition of which this nation can scarcely be proud. Yet there are said to be no less than 750,000 families whose total yearly returns fail to reach that figure. Such a condition existing at a stage of our national development where work is easy to get and the man-power situation is tight calls for a new deal for the "little man" in Canada.
There should be in this nation no breadwinner who makes less than $1,200 a year, which, calculated on a weekly basis, amounts to around $23 a week. I ask the house how a little family can be properly raised on anything less than that. It is evident that in the new and expanding economy which must come in the future such conditions must form no part, and I fancy in this House of Commons, regardless of political considerations, I shall have very complete and thorough agreement on that point.
The Progressive Conservative party strongly supports the principle of more equitable adjustment of the extra burdens, borne by parents of families, over the resources of the state, and over all members of the community as a whole. There has long been a compelling and urgent need of action to meet this problem, not only in our low income groups but in fact all through the great sturdy middle class of this country as well. Surely on this we can all agree, and also that we should move, and should have moved long ago, to deal adequately and effectively with such problems.
The measure and methods which the government now submits to us to achieve these ends we do not think are adequate. Left to regulation is the whole tremendous administrative set-up, all the procedures to be followed, as to whether the dominion is going to set up treasury and dominion welfare offices in all the provinces and in the major cities and towns of the country. All this haziness and this demand on parliament for an open warrant to set up committees, board and tribunals and staff is not to meet the problem head on, but rather is it a request for authority to do as little or as much as cabinet desires and to defer any actual, practical help to July 1, 1945. This measure is only an isolated link in what should be a chain of comprehensive welfare and security plans for the home and family and child life of this country. The government must know that this is an illusory, hastily prepared and untenable measure. It must surely be aware of its unconstitutionality. It must know that it is not good enough or sound enough to be put into effect. The public must be made aware that the effect of its illegality will be to delay benefits sought. This measure, which concerns the basic relations in our social life, and which will affect our whole present provincial system of child welfare, mothers' allowances, children's aid, standards of wages, educational authority and child welfare jurisdiction, is presented to parliament not in the form of a complete statute but in the form of authority for regulations
100-33C

Family Allowances

to be passed. The very character of the measure perpetuates bureaucratic control through delegated authority into our post-war economy, on a measure not connected with the prosecution of the war itself, as is evidenced by the fact that the government postpones its operation for nearly a year.
We support the purpose and principle of elevating the standard of family life among the masses of our people, but we do not believe, that this bill will adequately and effectively carry that out. Some of the reasons for such a stand I shall now enumerate:
1. It is unconstitutional and invades the jurisdiction of the provinces. In other words, it proposes to do things which this parliament has no power to do, and this without even consulting the provinces first. It is a direct thrust at the rights and responsibilities of the provinces, who doubtless will oppose such an illegal encroachment upon their recognized field of welfare services. A measure that will not stand up in court is worse than no measure at all; for it only delays the relief and reform it purports to give. This bill in my opinion, if passed, will be as powerless as a day-old kitten to further the objects and purposes it sets out to accomplish. It might be profitable to recall the words of caution and warnings of disaster on the constitutional point employed by ^ the Prime Minister when he inveighed against the social legislation introduced in the session of 1935. As late as July 14 last we heard an echo of that debate when he spoke of the social legislation introduced at that time, and this is what he said:
That legislation was introduced and placed upon the statute books, but what happened? The matter was appealed to the supreme court which held the whole body of legislation ultra vires. I ask my hon. friends whether that was helping the social order in the country or whether it was the sort of thing that was calculated to provoke social unrest.
I toss those words back to him now and ask him, after the experience he related with respect to that legislation, whether he can consistently introduce a measure now which is in a similar position. I say it is a dangerous and retrograde step to promise the underprivileged people of this nation something in a measure which is limp, which is crippled and which is powerless in law. Others in our party will deal further with the constitutional aspect of this measure, and I do no more than mention it at this juncture.
2. It seriously endangers the setting up of minimum wage standards in Canada, and may be accepted in many instances as a substitute for better wage levels. It is a thrust at the power of collective bargaining and of minimum wage principles. Labour has always
fMr. Graydon.]
looked with a doubtful eye on such legislation as this bill envisages, and not without good reason.
3 It adds a further strain on our national unity. There is but one province which has maintained the high birth rate and large family which was so characteristic of Canada's pioneer strains. That province's contributions to the general revenue will be out of proportion to the heavier deflection of payments that will have to come from other provinces to pay that province's heavier share of these subsidies. A proportionately lower revenue provider receiving a proportionately higher subsidy can scarcely make for greater unity at this stage in our national life.
4.	It disregards the whole question of need in family life and child welfare. It is a direct threat to a more comprehensive social programme where cash grants to those in need and adequate health, educational, housing and general welfare provisions would have their place. It thus ignores the needy families of our nation's taxpayers and the heavy expenses incurred by parents with children over sixteen. The loosing of this lone wolf to range in a constitutional no-man's land can seriously threaten the developing dominion-provincial network of assistance and health provisions and even hold back other programmes. This is in the present set-up only "bull in the china shop" legislation and rides rough-shod over social welfare undertakings of the provincial and municipal authorities. This "intruder" legislation runs the risk of disturbing and delaying the progress being so rapidly made by other jurisdictions.
5.	It foreshadows the building of a giant peace-time bureaucracy with its inevitable controls, offices, inspectors and machinery. This nation wants to get rid of this kind of thing when the war is over, and here we have this unpopular war-time policy being perpetuated in the period of peace. The bill itself is little more than the barest authority upon which orders in council can be based. The real legislating with respect to this measure will be done behind the closed doors of cabinet council.
6.	It is blank cheque legislation without the emergency of war time to justify it. When the flesh is put on the skeleton of this legislation by cabinet-made regulations the people and parliament -will be spectators in the grandstand rather than participants in its framing. It will result- in a costly overlapping of services and will reach its finger into the lives of the people directly from the centre of bureaucracy itself. That to agriculture and labour as well

Family Allowances
as citizens at large will not be a welcome provision in the bill. They are fed up with bureaucracy and controls.
7.	It attacks the very basis of our system of justice, for it asks for power to constitute solely at the discretion of the minister and his appointees a system of committees, boards, tribunals and agents with undefined powers and and with denial of appeal under specified heads and with prosecution for infringement of the act, solely with the minister's consent. It constitutes a threat to the liberty of the subject which to say the least may be extremely dangerous.
8.	It is a costly duplication of existing services. It gives power to the federal government to set up expensive overlapping agencies where provincial, municipal and voluntary services are now doing a good job. This superimposition of federal machinery on top of existing provincial machinery cannot help but be wasteful and inefficient.
9.	It denies the basic principles of social justice. Such justice calls not for the mass treatment of all people as the same, such as marked unemployment relief, but for treating life as it is, individually and the needs of families differently as they are different. The needs of a family in the winter in my part of Ontario are different from those in the far north. Families in a teeming slum and families in the Okanagan; families in the eastern townships and families in Cape Breton's mining or fishing villages, have very different needs. This scheme lumps them all together and gives the' same grant to all. Could the injustice be more patently apparent?
Having stated some of the reasons why we feel that this measure is not in the interest of a better method of raising the family standard in Canada, I now move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson):
That all the words after the word "that" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house it is desirable that the standard of family life among the masses of the people in Canada be raised,
"but in view of the fact that bill 161 is not within the constitutional competence of the do-minion parliament, that it be not now read a second time, but that it be referred to the special committee on social security with instructions that the bill be studied and redrafted after consultation, collaboration and in cooperation with the provinces as a joint undertaking and introduced before this ho-use prorogues. Such redrafted bill Shall contain specific details as to the administrative machinery, forms and procedure under which the bill will be administered and shall provide that any contributions to be made under the terms of
100-336J
the said hill by the dominion to a province shall be conditional on the federal Minister of Labour certifying that the standard of wages in that province is not lower than the average standards of wages for similar work in the other provinces.
May I propose to the government that as dependents' alowances come properly under federal jurisdiction, the allowances now paid with respect to children of members of our armed forces be augmented at once by the amounts mentioned in the bill now before the house instead of delaying such payment till July 1, 1945. The same should apply to those coming within the provisions of the Pension Act. The government possesses the power to do this quite apart from this bill, and it may also be properly pointed out that such records are available. There is no legitimate excuse for delay. It is merely a matter of increasing the amount of the cheque.
Before I conclude I should like to express the hope that the government will be diverted from their charted course and accept our amendment which is designed to meet more effectively and quickly the problem we are all trying to solve. Its acceptance would prevent such an unconstitutional and unworkable piece of legislation from being tossed into an election campaign where there might be a temptation to make three and a half million political footballs out of Canada's children. At all costs they must not be made pawns in a political game. The public are bound to regard a bill so patently unconstitutional and unworkable, brought in at the dying days of a dying parliament by a dying government, as a last straw to which this drowning administration clutches to save itself in the churning sea of political unpopularity.
On behalf of the children and their parents across Canada who are badly in need of real and immediate help, I repeat my demand and plea that we must have legislation which will work, and which has teeth, and which will provide the essential assistance to the hard-pressed parents of families across the dominion who are struggling hard and doing their level best to keep up in the uncertain race for economic survival to-day. Let us help these people. Let us not just say we will help them a year from now by undisclosed ways and means. Actions speak louder than words, and this party stands for action.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I rise to a point of order. My hon. friend has proposed that the bill be not now read a second time but that it be referred to a committee. I do not wish to say that my hon. friend is not as well' aware of -the rules as he should be, but he
Family Allowances

certainly ought to have known that his motion is out of order according to standing order 75, which reads as follows:
Every public bill shall be read twice in the house before committal or amendment.
As the amendment proposes that the bill be not now read a second time but be referred to a committee it is, I submit, out of order.


Gordon Graydon: May I say to the Prime Minister that if that interpretation of the rules were to be accepted, then of course one of the major banking bills of this session was not dealt with in the proper way. It was referred to the banking and commerce committee before it was given second reading.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; which one?


Gordon Graydon: The Alberta Bank bill. I distinctly remember that that was done at that time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The subject matter.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury). The Alberta Bank bill was referred to the banking and commerce committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not the bill itself, but the subject matter of the bill, which is very different from the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The subject matter of the bill is the bill. The Alberta Bank bill was referred to the [DOT] banking and commerce committee on every occasion on which it was brought forward before second reading was given to it. I vividly recall requesting the administration at that time not to pursue that course. If the government take the responsibility of trying to eliminate this amendment, that is their responsibility, but the public will desire to see a test made on this amendment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The amendment is out of order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not [DOT]think so.


Thomas Vien: I have read the amendment and standing order 75, which is as follows:
Every public bill shall be read twice in the house before committal or amendment.
. The amendment states that the bill be not now read a second time, but that it be referred to the special committee on social security. My recollection is not that of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). It was the subject matter of the Alberta Bank bill which was referred to the banking and commerce committee. In my judgment the amendment now before the house falls under
IMr. Mackenzie King.]
and is contrary to the provisions of standing order 75; consequently the bill cannot be referred to a committee before second reading, and I shall have to rule the amendment out of order.


Gordon Graydon: If that is your ruling,
Mr. Speaker, we desire to appeal from it.
Mr. SPEAKER put the question as follows:
On the motion made bj' Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King that bill No. 161, an act to provide for family allowances, be now read a second time, Mr. Graydon, seconded by Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) moved an amendment. I ruled the amendment out of order on the basis of standing order 75, which states that every public bill shall be read twice in the house before committal or amendment. The leader of the opposition has appealed against the decision


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, in discussing this important measure this afternoon I 'have no set or prepared speech or remarks to make. I want to say immediately that we of this party welcome heartily the introduction of this measure. However, I wish it were a part of a wide social security programme much more comprehensive than any of the measures that have been placed before this house up to the present time, or perhaps I should say, up to this stage of the session.
This afternoon as I discuss this measure I am thinking of the years that have gone by. I think of 1921 when the late Mr. J. S. Woodsworth appeared as the member for Winnipeg North Centre. I think of the many years he spent endeavouring to popularize social security measures in this house as he succeeded to a large degree in popularizing them across the country. I have no doubt whatever .that it is not only because of the new order, of which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) speaks, but because of the long process of education carried on in this
country by pioneers for social security that this important bill has reached its second reading to-day. As one of the party which has consistently urged the adoption in this country of comprehensive social security measures, I welcome this proposal.
I regret that the constitutional argument has been introduced at this time by the official opposition. I think that was a move to shelve this important matter, and I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that your ruling has been sustained. I regret that any constitutional doubts which may exist have not been resolved ere this. When we met in 1940 the Sirois commission had been inquiring into the needs of the country. It made a comprehensive report regarding some of the constitutional difficulties

arising in connection with various provinces-and the dominion. I think it is indeed a tragedy that right up to the end of this parliament we have not had an opportunity of endeavouring to resolve those difficulties to which such striking attention was drawn a few years ago.
The government has promised throughout the whole of this session, and before he went to Britain to attend the prime ministers' conference the Prime Minister said that a meeting of the premiers of the provinces would be called at an early date in order that these matters might be discussed and considered. I am sorry that at this stage, when the life of ' this parliament is running out, when the sands of the government are running low, that we have not yet seen convened by the Prime Minister the conference which could consider the very important matters which some people evidently are inclined to raise. When I say, "some people" I take it that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) had in mind that the constitutional issue would be raised by one of the provinces where his friends are in control.
I said a few moments ago that in my opinion we should have this measure as part of a national social security programme. When this movement came into being as a result of the federation of many groups throughout this country with similar ends in view, we adopted a programme. That programme contained a statement regarding comprehensive social security measures for Canada. Throughout our entire existence our party has endeavoured to get these matters considered by the people and parliament. I have in my hand the very last statement that was made at our national convention two years ago when we said that we would work for and promote improved nutrition standards, family and' mother's allowances. Hon. gentlemen will1 note that in that statement we included not
Family Allowances

only family allowances but some other items that are of interest and importance in the realm of social security.
I quite agree with the Prime Minister when he said this afternoon that the new world, the new order as he put it, which we all hope is in the making will put the emphasis on human welfare rather than on wealth. Most of our law's in the past have been written for the protection of property. Parliaments have been more or less merely umpires in the economic realm. But to-day parliaments and legislatures everywhere in the world are forced to think more and more in terms of human welfare. Ten years ago, twelve years ago, and in the years before that, in this house the slogan that we adopted in 1932 was ridiculed from all sides. We said that there must be production for use rather than for the amassing of wealth and the making of great profits. But to-day we have had the satisfaction of bearing the Prime Minister on the floor of this chamber echo in other words the slogan of the party for which I speak. We ask, Ihowever, why is it that such measures were not introduced years ago?
The Prime Minister said that conditions were different seventy-five, fifty, twenty-five years ago, but I notice that he stopped at twenty-five. May I remind him that conditions that called for social security measures, for a nutritional programme, for family allowances, for widows' pensions, for better conditions for the aged and for those who were finable to secure employment existed ten years ago, nine years ago, eight years ago, five years ago, when we had nearly one million people in this country on relief, and when in the city where I lived, where we gave relief on the most generous scale of any city in Canada, people were forced to exist on something like an average of three cents a meal. Consequently, no matter what conditions may have been fifty or one hundred years ago, the conditions that existed between 1930 and 1939, in the years when this government was in power, or when hon. gentlemen to my immediate right were in power, called loudly for measures of this description. Let me remind the house that we are now but reaping the vengeance of those days. Those [DOT]of us who have examined the figures that were given in the house showing the results of the (physical examinations of the men who volunteered for active service in this war know that nearly one-half of those who volunteered in the early part of this war were rejected on physical grounds. To-day many men are suffering form physical disability because of the conditions they had to endure between
IMr. ColdwelJ.]
1930 and 1939 when this government or its predecessor was in power. One of the most common ailments to-day in our armed forces, I am told by medical men, is stomach diseases that were caused by inadequate feeding, malnutrition or no feeding at all in the days before the war. But to-day we have this measure, and in spite of the fact that it is belated, in spite of the fact that we regard it as only one short step, we welcome it because it is a recognition that human rights must come before property rights in our land.


Mr. HOWDEN:: Stomach diseases usually come from too much feeding.


Thomas Miller Bell: Some of them do; but the hon. gentleman, who is a medical man himself, knows perfectly well that some stomach diseases which men are suffering from to-day came from starvation.


John Power Howden: I dioubt it.


Major James William Coldwell: One had only to cross this country in those days and see the boys feeding out of tin cans in the jungles to know that that kind of living would inevitably bring upon them the stomach diseases which some of them are suffering from to-day.


John Power Howden: I do not want to disturb the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, but to the best of my honest belief I do not think you can develop any stomach disease from under-feeding.


Major James William Coldwell: If you could not develop stomach diseases from under-feeding you could develop many other kinds of diseases from under-feeding.


John Power Howden: Well and good, but not stomach disease.


Major James William Coldwell: Some medical men will tell you that irregular feeding, which these boys endured during those days, is one source of stomach disease. While over-feeding may be a source also, undoubtedly irregular feeding or no feeding at all is bound to bring about a considerable amount of stomach trouble. But I am not going to argue about the medical opinion.
I am pointing out that for years after this government came into power, in place of the hon. gentlemen who now comprise the official opposition, nothing was done to meet the dire necessities of the Canadian people. As I have said in this house once before, I recollect that a group of young men came right under this roof in February, 1939, and when they pleaded for an opportunity to get food, clothing and shelter they were told by the government that there was no way whereby this government

Family Allowances
could do anything for them because the province was supposed to do it. When these young men went to the province they were told that they had not lived in the province long enough and that they should go to the municipality, and the municipality told them that they had not lived in the municipality long enough, but charity provided them with two meals a day and a bed at a mission in this city. Six months later the war broke out, and some of those very boys who were described right in this chamber by an hon. gentleman who sits not very far from here and supports the government as yaps and ne'er-do-wells were among those who enlisted. It is all very well to come along now in July, 1944, and make fine speeches about family allowances and nutrition and all the rest of it. But let us not forget the years that have gone by and the neglect of this government to do the thing that it ought to have done when it had the power to do it before this war broke out.
I said a few moments ago that this bill should be a part of a comprehensive social security plan and that we should see to it that it is not used either for the depression of wages or for the depression of farm prices. Properly carried out, I believe that it will prove a good measure so far as an increased consumption of farm products is concerned. Properly administered and properly viewed, and with adequate protection given to the wage-earner and the encouragement of organization among labour, I believe that it will be a good thing for the families of our working people. But let us remember that this must never be regarded as a substitute for either a floor under low wages or a floor under low farm prices. If it were ever so regarded, then I say to this house that its enactment would indeed be a tragedy. But I do not believe that it will ever be permitted to be used for either of those purposes.


Mr. MITCHELL:: That was never suggested by anybody.


Major James William Coldwell: It was suggested this afternoon.


Humphrey Mitchell: Not by us.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not suggesting that it will be so used. I am simply pointing out that I hope and believe that it will never' be used as a substitute for either. We believe, as a matter of fact, that family allowances find their proper place in any general programme of social security and family welfare.
There is one thing about this bill that I want to criticize constructively. Nothing I say will be said in destructive criticism of the
bill. But it does seem to me that there is something wrong with the manner in which this bill is to be worked out, because the problem of maintaining a large family is surely greater than the problem of maintaining a small family. Yet we find under .this bill that as the family increases in size the amount of the family allowance per child is reduced.


Mr. GRANT:: The difficulty is not twice as great though.


Major James William Coldwell: I think that is wrong. As a family increases the problem of caring for the family tends rather to increase than to decrease.


Thomas Vincent Grant: No.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, if that were not so, I believe there would be larger families.
It is to be remarked that this does not pretend to be a bill which will enable the state to pay for the maintenance of a child. If the cost as given this afternoon is between $14 and $15 a month on a low wage level- and it must be at least that-to maintain a child, and the average family allowance to be paid is $7 a month, then approximately the total payment, putting it on a rather low level, is about half what it takes to maintain a child in a family. It seems to me that if we are to have family allowances based on per capita grants to children we should see to it that the amount is not decreased if a family exceeds what we might term the average number.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I interrupt? That is directly against the findings of Sir William Beveridge.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, I knew that, but I cannot see the validity of the argument, and I am giving this constructive criticism of it.
The Prime Minister this afternoon made some excellent points in support of this measure. He said that to-day we are recognizing the fact that we are all dependent one upon another. I am glad that this recognition is being made not only in our country but throughout the world. We have had too much emphasis upon and propaganda about rugged individualism, rugged individualism which brought millions of people down to being ragged individuals; and I am glad the Prime Minister emphasized the fact that we are members one of another and that each one of us is responsible for the conditions which we find around us. As he said, the importance of our human resources is far greater than the importance of our material resources. I noted the figures which the Prime
Family Allowances

Minister used this afternoon. He spoke of one million and a half families. I do not know how these figures were arrived at. While he was speaking I sent for Hansard of March 15, 1943, which at page 1230 gives the total number of children at home in Canada, twenty-four years of age and under, as 4,628,000, and a break-down by provinces. It struck me that, on the basis of a million and a half families, the estimate of three and a half million children might be a little low. I am not sure how the estimate was arrived at.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My figures
were worked out from the census of 1941.


Thomas Miller Bell: Of course these are census figures for a different age-group. I just wanted to be sure that that was so. There are then in round figures a million and a half families and three and a half million children, and of those only a percentage will benefit from this legislation. Not all will benefit, because of the reduction in the exemption for children under the income tax law. It has seemed to me that it would have been better if the family allowance had been paid alike to all children; it would have been less complicated, and the matter could then have been dealt with above the exemption for income tax on the basis of income tax returns and exemptions. That would perhaps have simplified the government's plan.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know if I understood my hon. friend rightly; but the intention is that throughout the dominion all will be paid, and the matter of adjustments will come afterwards.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what I was not particularly clear about. But what I was going to say is that it strikes me although I have not been able to give the bill quite the study I might have given it under other circumstances, that the bill is very complicated. The matter of reductions on account of the size of the family and the variation which may occur in families by births and deaths and so on will involve a terrific administrative job, and I personally think it could have been made much simpler had another method been devised.
The proposed legislation for children's allowances calls, as I understand it, for a rising scale of payments-$5 a month for children less than six years of age to $8 a month to children of thirteen to fifteen years, together with deductions ranging from SI a month for the fifth children to S3 a month for the eighth child and over. That is where, I think, the administrative difficulties of the

measure are going to be very great, and I think a simpler plan should have been adopted.
Here I wish to interject my opinion that the financial commitment which the government is making-and this bill definitely commits the government to certain payments- ought to have been part of the budget. I agree that, instead of coming into effect on July 1, 1945, it should have come into effect, if brought in earlier this session, on July 1, 1944, or now at the latest, January 1, 1945, and the government ought to have carried out its constitutional obligation-I think there is one-when it provides for an expenditure, to make at least some provision therefor in the budget. If we were passing merely a resolution calling upon the government or parliament to consider the appropriation of a certain sum of money, as a target for an expenditure for social security measures, the position would be somewhat different, but we are definitely committing another to these expenditures. May I say that in one respect we are very glad that we are, but I just want to point that out.
I said a few moments ago that the plan to provide for a scale of deductions for each child above four, which I assume is considered to be the average, although from the figures given by the Prime Minister it is not the average, is bound to discriminate against the larger families. That is the first constructive criticism I would make against this measure, that there is no doubt a discrimination against the larger families. In my opinion this will not save the government a very large amount of money. I had an economist look into that phase of it for me; I happen to have a few notes which he made while I was away, and he estimates that the saving because of these deductions will amount to not more than S15 million a year; that we could have paid the family allowances without taking into account these deductions and that the cost would not have been more than $15 million greater than the $200 million net estimated by the Prime Minister this afternoon. If that is so, the administrative difficulties are so great that for the saving of $15 million, or even $50 million it is not worth while. My figures may not be wholly correct, but I place that before the government because I see the difficulties of administration and the complications that are likely to arise. I would like to see the measure as successful as it can possibly be because upon it hangs other social security legislation which I hope will be introduced at least by a subsequent government.

Family Allowances
The rising scale of payments goes, up to the age of sixteen. I believe that we should endeavour, as was suggested by the leader of the opposition-and that is the only thing in which I agree with him-to raise it to the age of eighteen in order to encourage parents to keep their children at school or to have them take some technical training or other education. I believe it will be quite important when this war is over to keep as many of our younger people off the labour market as we can. We have a very heavy task ahead of us to provide jobs for the hundreds of thousands of people now engaged in war industry and in the armed forces of the country, and anything that will tend to reduce the pressure on the labour market, particularly of lorver paid labour, which is often youthful labour, should be done. I would like to have seen the government extend this up to the age of eighteen.
These are the principal criticisms I want to make at this time. Some of my colleagues, speaking from different points of view, will deal with other details of the measure, but I do not like the idea of there being too much supervision. I notice that the bill empowers the minister, in section 9 (a) to:
establish committees or boards and arrange with departments of government and other public and private agencies and organizations to assist him in carrying out the purposes of this act.
I think our people rather dislike the setting up of such committees. While many good people are associated with social welfare committees, there are often people who are overofficious, and it seems to me we should be very careful lest, under a clause of this description, the minister gives too many powers and appoints too many committees of investigation. That in itself 'will tend to defeat the success of this measure. We are also told in the bill that the allowances shall be applied by the person receiving 'them exclusively to the maintenance, care, training, education and advancement of the children. To whom is this going to be paid? In most countries where there are family allowances it is paid to the mother because she ;s the one who buys the food and clothing. She may not provide the shelter but she is the proper person to whom the payment should be made. Under the civil law of one of our provinces the woman is placed in a different position in relation to the husband from that which prevails in some of the other provinces but I think even if that difficulty arises in that province the act should be sufficiently wide that in the various provinces where we have not the same type of civil law the allowance should be paid to the mother, if, of course, she is a fit and proper person. It is difficult for a wife, if the husband
is not just doing the right thing by the children, to make any complaint, and undue interference in the home and in the family life would be in my opinion, resented and would be indeed dangerous in effect. I would, therefore, like to see the mother given the money.
I do not intend to have it inferred in any way that I think these people who receive this money, the humble poor, as has been said this afternoon by the Prime Minister, are not capable of spending these family allowances. I think they are. I think it is an insult to the poor to say continually, "Oh, well, they will spend it in riotous living or in the beer parlour or in the picture show or somewhere else." I remember that argument very well in my young days, when I often heard it said that if hours of labour were reduced and wages increased the working class of Great Britain, where I was born, would spend their time idly or dissipate their wages. We know perfectly well that has not happened. As a matter of fact, the general level of culture and education has increased with the improved standards of living and reduction in hours of labour. The time when the working class, if I may use that term, were at their lowest ebb, most depressed, when perhaps liquor was most misused, at least in the country where I was born, was the time when it provided


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And no social insurance.


Thomas Miller Bell: No social insurance.' That was the time when, to a person after a hard day of grinding work, going back to slum conditions, liquor provided some relief.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Before 1906, when the Liberal party came into power.


Major James William Coldwell: I will give the Liberal party in 1906 all the credit I can give it for social security legislation, but let us not forget that it was very largely because of the activities of the people who subsequently formed the Labour party; and if the Liberal party had been truly progressive, no Labour party would have arisen in Great Britain. Nor should I forget that after all, prior to 1906, if I may be perfectly fair about it, there were British Tories too who thought much of the evil conditions around the mines. Do not forget the Earl of Shaftesbury and some of those people-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Were you one?


Major James William Coldwell: No. I was not even born when the Earl of Shaftesbury lived, so
Family Allmoances

that I cannot be counted among those who supported the splendid measures they introduced.


Mr. MARTIN:: But surely the hon. member was never a Tory?


Major James William Coldwell: I could not help where I was born. I did not choose the home into which I was born; but when I grew up my eyes were opened, and may I say to the hon. gentlemen that they were so widely opened that I am not a member of the Liberal party. We may as well be clear about it. These are my main thoughts regarding the measure, but as I sit down I should like to summarize.


James Garfield Gardiner: You would be farther away from the Tory party if you were a Liberal than you are as a socialist.


Major James William Coldwell: Is that the hon. gentleman's opinion? Well, I have just come from the province of Alberta where Liberals and Tories alike are combining with their natural enemies-they were natural enemies a few years ago-the Social Credit party, in order to fight the movement which I have the honour to represent in this house. May I say also to the hon. gentleman that there are no Liberals and no Tories in the province of Alberta and have not been for a long time. They call themselves Independents, whatever that may mean. They were able to get together because there was no fundamental difference between them, at least in Alberta.
I wish to close my remarks by saying that we welcome this measure and we trust that it will not be used either to depress the prices of agricultural products, the floor under commodities, or to depress wages. I should like to see comprehensive social security measures brought into this house placing a floor under wages high enough to provide an adequate living; a floor under farm prices that would give a proper return to the producer, and then measures of this description would be much more worth while than they are likely to be.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) : I trust that on reconsideration the country at large will take the view of this measure that this house has taken of your decision, Mr. Speaker. It is an epochal proposal. It is not one which I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, can be met with gibes of its being introduced in the dying hours of a dying parliament and so forth, and that it comes from a dying government. Nor can it be met elsewhere by treating it as a type of diaper dole or baby bonus. It is really an epochal proposal for the betterment of conditions in this country. I do not think it can be disposed of either on the ground that there

is no power in this Canadian parliament to enact the legislation the bill provides for. The matter of the constitutional jurisdiction of parliament and the provinces has fortunately for some, fortunately for a great many of my profession, given rise to many references before the courts and many interesting trips to Ottawa and to other places; but there has been some degree of finality reached in the extent to which courts have declared restrictions resulting from the terms of the British North America Act on the powers of the Canadian parliament. The decision which deals with matters of this kind is that which was rendered by the supreme court and confirmed by His Majesty on the advice of his privy council on the Employment and Social Insurance Act in 1936-37. It is quite true that the enactment in question in that case was declared to be beyond the powers of parliament, but the principles which were discussed and which were affirmed both by the supreme court and by the privy council are express recognition of the power in parliament to do the kind of thing that is proposed in this bill.
Hon. members will recollect that there was a division of opinion in the supreme court. The Chief Justice of Canada and the late lamented Mr. Justice Davis held that the legislation was within the powers of parliament and that it was in its true character taxation and disposal of property acquired by His Majesty in the right of the dominion through taxation. The majority in the supreme court held that that was not the true character of the legislation; that in pith and substance the legislation did not have to do with the raising of a fund by means of taxation and the disposal of that fund bht that it did have to do with contractual rights between employers and employees.	Mr. Justice Rinfret, as he was then, one of the puisne judges of the supreme court who wrote the leading judgment said:
_ One of the effects of the act under submission is, in the language of Lord Haldane, in workmen's compensation board v. C.P.R. (1) "to attach statutory terms to contracts of employment," and to impose contractual duties as between employers and employees. In its immediate result,- the act creates civil rights as between the former and the latter.
Because it was an act to affect civil rights as between employers and employees in its true effect and purport it was declared to be beyond the rights of parliament and an infringement of the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the provinces under subsection 13 of section 92 of the act to deal with property and civil rights. But as would naturally be supposed in discussing the question their lord-

Family Allowances
ships, both in the supreme court and in the privy council, had to consider what parliament could do and could validly do in legislation having not the same direct purpose but somewhat the same large social objective, and both in the supreme court and in the privy council there was unanimity of opinion that parliament could dispose of the property under its control by way of gifts, and even attach conditions to such gifts, provided that it was not a device for indirectly entering upon a field exclusively reserved to the provinces.
The judgment of the Chief Justice of Canada and of Mr. Justice Davis, of course, went very far in that direction; and the language used by the Chief Justice of Canada, and with that part, that provided it had been legislation of that character, no complaint could have been found by anyone, seems very appropriate. It is found in the reports of the supreme court of 1936 at page 431 and is as follows:
The exclusive legislative authority of parliament extends inter alia to the subject "The public . . . property." It cannot be doubted, we it'hink, that "property" here is used in its broadest sense, and includes every kind of asset. This legislative authority is exercisable "notwithstanding anything in this act."
Because the words "notwithstanding anything in this act" govern the whole enumeration of the federal powers.
There is always, of course, the qualification, and everything hereinafter said is subject to that qualification, that parliament is incapable of acquiring jurisdiction over matters within the exclusive competence of the provinces by legislating upon those matters under the pretence of exercising a power which does not embrace within its ambit the real subject matter of the legislation. Subject to that qualification, we know of no authority by which His Majesty's courts have jurisdiction to examine, with a view to pronouncing upon its validity, legislation by parliament in relation to the disposition of the assets committed to its control by section 91, British North America Act.
Parliament has authority to make grants out of the public moneys to individual inhabitants of any of the provinces, for example, for relief of distress, for reward of merit, or for any other object which parliament in its wisdom may deem to be a desirable one. The propriety of such grants, the wisdom of such grants, the convenience or inconvenience of the practice of making such grants, are considerations for parliament alone, and have no relevancy in any discussion before any court concerning the competence of parliament to authorize them.
With that Mr. Justice Rinfret, writing the leading judgment, of course concurred. He accepted that principle, but in distinguishing between the statute before him and what he would have considered a proper application of the same, he said:
Be that as it may under all circumstances, the benefits conferred on the employees by the act are not gifts with conditions attached, which the employers are free to accept or not.
And for that reason, because they were not gifts made under the authority of parliament with conditions attached but were something else, he held that the Employment and Social Insurance Act was invalid, concluding his judgment with these words:
For these reasons, and also for the reasons given by my brother Kerwin, with whom I entirely concur, I have come to the conclusion that the Employment and Social Insurance Act . . . is wholly ultra vires of the parliament of Canada.
Mr. Justice Kerwin, with whom Mr. Justice Rinfret and the other members of the court conferred, had this to say at page 457: *
As to the latter point, it is evident that the dominion may grant sums of money to individuals or organizations and that the gift may be accompanied by such restrictions and conditions as parliament may see fit to enact. It would then be open to the proposed recipient to decline the gift or to accept it subject to such conditions.
This case was appealed to His Majesty in his privy council and came before a very learned committee composed of Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton, Lord Macmillan, Lord Wright and Sir Sidney Rowlatt. The conclusion of the judgment rendered by the privy council was:
lit follows that the whole act must be pronounced ultra vires, and in accordance with the view of the majority of the supreme court their lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal be dismissed.
Speaking expressly of the right to impose taxes and to dispose of the fund so raised, Lord Atkin said:
That the dominion may impose taxation for the purpose of creating a fund for special purposes and may apply that fund for making contributions in the public interest to individuals, corporations or public authorities could not as a general proposition be denied.
But he went on to say:
But assuming that the dominion has collected by means of taxation a fund, it by no means follows that any legislation which disposes of it is necessarily within dominion competence.
If the legislation which disposes of the fund is in reality legislation regulating matters which are within provincial control, then the object of the legislation is not to raise a fund and dispose of it but to impinge upon the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the province. That is the last word we have had from the courts as to the proper construction of this distribution of powers as between the federal parliament and the provincial legislatures.
Family Allowances

I am not for the moment discussing all the details of this bill, but in principle G' is a bill to allocate to every child maintained by a parent, up to the age of sixteen years, a certain monthly benefit, the only condition attached being that the person to whom the money is paid shall apply it for the maintenance and better upbringing of that child. There is nothing else whatever; no obligation of any kind is imposed. The bill is not drawn in such a way that if it were shown that a person had received the allocation and misapplied it, he would commit an offence. Offences are set out in the act, but that is not one of them. No obligation is imposed upon anyone; no contractual right is interfered with; no family right is affected. This is merely'a declaration by the Canadian government, authorized by the Canadian parliament, that the Canadian people wish to contribute so much a month for the upkeep of each child, provided that the money be used for that purpose. That is all there is in the legislation, and nothing can be found in any of the decisions to support the charge so lightly or so vigorously, according to the individual point of view, made this afternoon that this legislation is unconstitutional.^
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, when the house took recess at six o'clock I was endeavouring to construe certain passages from the decisions of the courts with respect to social legislation and had, I believe, shown that under those decisions there was nothing to prevent the dominion parliament from authorizing gifts, and even attaching conditions to them, unless they were a device to invade provincial jurisdiction, and that this did not invade provincial jurisdiction in respect of property and civil rights. There are, of course, other subsections of section 92. One is subsection 16, which reads:
Generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province.
The granting by federal authority of an allowance in respect of children under sixteen years of age is certainly not something which is within provincial jurisdiction as being a matter of local or private nature within the province. Subsection 7 of section 92 reads:
The establishment, maintenance, and management of hospitals, asylums, charities, and eleemosynary institutions in and for the province, other than marine hospitals.

Those are institutions within provincial jurisdiction. Is there anythng within this bill which can be classed as the establishment, maintenance and management of hospitals, asylums, charities and eleemosynary institutions in and for the province? I respectfully submit that there is not and that, there can be no doubt about that.
It is well known to all lawyers who have had anything to do with the interpretation of the constitutional act that one of the cardinal rules for the interpretation of that act is to attach to the words used in it the meaning which those words had at the time it was enacted. That rule was first asserted in connection with the distinction between direct and indirect taxes. It is well known to all lawyers that for the purpose of determining what was meant by the legislators as direct or indirect taxation one should not refer to the theories of present-day economists; one should take the meaning that was attached to that language in what was then the classical book on political economy, the one by Adam Smith. It is his definition of what was regarded as the distinction between direct and indirect taxation at the time the confederation act was enacted that has prevailed and has been declared to be the governing rule for that distinction in all cases that have come before the courts.
Therefore, for the purpose of construing subsection 7 of section 92 we have to refer to what were known then as hospitals, asylums, charities, and eleemosynary institutions. Will any one contend that in 1867 there was anywhere in the world a provision known as a charity which involved the payment by the state of an allowance for the maintenance of children or for the better maintenance of the children of the nation? It is a new concept that because the state controls the general economy of the nation it may have some moral obligation to relieve particular hardships which the system it maintains may impose upon some individuals. That was something that was not and could not be contemplated at the time the British North America Act was enacted.
I submit that not only is there a constitutional right to do the thing proposed by this legislation, there is some moral obligation to do so on the authority that maintains the system of the national economy. The economic system which this parliament maintains for the Canadian nation depends upon the exercise by it of many controls which are within its jurisdiction. It is this parliament that determines what shall be the monetary policy of the country. It is this parliament that determines what shall be the tariff policy

Family Allowances
of the country. It is this parliament that institutes and fosters and maintains a system of economy which to a very large measure depends upon wide participation in foreign trade. Those are the major factors which have to do with the productivity and the distribution of the wealth of the Canadian people. This parliament in doing so constantly endeavours to foster and maintain that which will be in the interests of the majority of the Canadian people.
It so happens that under that system, because of the manner in which it has developed, because of the manner in which it exists, the ordinary labourer cannot receive wages sufficient to provide himself and a family of several children with what is required for their well-being. There has been a suggestion that this will have some effect on the scale of wages. I submit that it cannot have any effect on the scale of wages. Our system, which is one of competition with the world at large, puts some limits upon the scale of wages that can be paid in the production of the things we want to sell on the markets of the world. There are greater burdens and greater responsibilities placed upon the workman who has a family of several children to provide for than upon a single man, or upon a man who has only himself and a wife to provide for, or perhaps even upon a man who has only himself, a wife and one child to provide for.
It is not practicable to have a scale of wages measured by the needs or responsibilities of those who receive the wages. The wage received by those who perform the same amount of labour and who contribute the same amount of production must necessarily be the same. In order to have a wage which would be sufficient for the man with a family of eight or ten children to provide for, that wage would have to be uniform throughout the nation. The figures given this afternoon by the Prime Minister show that a very large majority of the workers have not the family obligations of the persons with large families.
In order to take care of the exceptional cases it would mean that there would have to be a general rise in the wage level for all those for whom the need may not really exist. That would very soon put the employer in a situation where he could not continue to be an employer. It would not be possible to market in the world at large our Canadian products if the wages that had to be paid to every Canadian worker were sufficient to enable a man with a family of eight or nine children to provide for all of them.
If this is an economic necessity which is conducive to the well-being of the nation at large we must recognize the situation of those
upon whom it bears so harshly as to put them in a position where they are unable to secure the share of the recurrent wealth that is necessary for their proper maintenance and upbringing. I submit, therefore, that there is a moral obligation, when a measure is devised in the interests of the majority, not to allow it to. bear too harshly on individuals without giving some consideration to alleviating the harshness with which it bears upon those individuals. I submit that that constitutes an answer to those whom we have heard say that they do not mind in a general way to have to pay taxes but that they do object to being taxed to help raise the children of their neighbours. That is not the correct view to take of the situation, because their ability to pay taxation is dependent upon the system which creates the necessity for some alleviation to those who are most harshly hit by it.
Leaving aside for the moment the constitutional aspect, may I refer to one or two other suggestions that have been made. One was that the amounts provided by parliament might be turned over to the province for distribution by the province. I submit that that is absolutely contrary to the principle of ministerial resonsibility.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We are doing it now.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: We are doing it now, and I do not think it is a good policy to follow. I think every hon. member representing a constituency in this parliament i.s entitled to ask me when I come before the committee of the whole, asking for an appropriation: What did you do with the amount that was placed at your disposal last year? And I do not think it is a sufficient answer for me to say: I turned it over to Mr. Drew or to Mr. Godbout or to whoever may succeed Mr. Godbout, if he does not succeed himself, and you will have to ask him. That, I submit, is not a proper fulfilling of the obligation of responsibility to the representatives of the people who authorize the taxation and who in turn have the responsibility of seeing how the proceeds of that taxation are expended.
There has also been the suggestion: Why in establishing allowances for childern do you not follow the proposal contained in the Beveridge report, for instance, and ignore the first child, perhaps ignore the first and the second child in giving the allowance? But if hon. members will look at the report from the dominion bureau of statistics on the eighth Canadian census, that of 1941, document No. 5 entitled, "Households, Occupations and Earnings," they will find there that the total number of Canadian families at the date of the census was
Family Allowances

2,486,920, of which 782,000 were without children, leaving 1,704,920 families with children, and of those, 1,015,990 were families of one or two children. That is to say, almost sixty per cent of all the families were families of one or two children. The purpose of this bill is to bring about some nearer approach to equality of opportunity for the children of the nation. The children of those families comprised in the 1.015,990 families where the income is sufficient to be subject to taxation do get and have always had a concession in the matter of taxation although there be only one or two in each family. Would it be fair in enacting this legislation to say: Oh, that is a very good rule for those whose income is sufficient to subject them to taxation, but for those whose income is not sufficient to bring them into the taxable class one or two children must be ignored. I suggest that the answer to that is self-evident.
In my own province of Quebec, of 443,000 families with children, 215.050 were families of one or two children. That does not mean that there are 215050 families in Quebec who are going to be content with one or two children; but this measure will operate from year to year, and every family starts out, unless it is in Callander, Ontario, with one or two children. That fact, and the permanent feature of this legislation constitute an answer, perhaps not a complete answer, to the unfairness of the scale whereby the allowance for more than the fourth child is reduced for the fifth, or sixth or seventh or eighth child, or any number after eight. That would be a very serious objection if this measure were providing for a one-time bonus to be paid once only and not to be repeated. But this measure will deal with the situation as it exists from year to year, even from month to month; every family will, during a certain period, no matter how many there are ultimately in the family, be for a certain period a family of not more than four children, and it will end by being a family of not more than four children under sixteen years of age. The difference between that kind of family and the family of eight or ten children or even more is that the period during which the allowance will be paid will be a very much longer period in the case of the latter. For all those families there will be a certain period during which the full allowances will 'be paid, at the beginning of (the family's growth, and at the end of the family's growth. In the meantime, while there are more than eight or more than four under sixteen years of age, is it or is it not a fact that we must recognize, at least those of us who come from modest homes, that there is not an increase in expenditure mathemat-

ically proportionate to the number of children? For instance, a man who has four children does not get a new house because a fifth child comes along, or because a sixth child comes along.
There does come a time when there has to be more room in the house; but in our economy housing is one of the most important elements in the cost of living, and one of the best economic reasons for the enactment of this measure is the fact that it will make it possible for persons to have, even if they are in the same earning class, a total revenue proportionate to the number of persons they have to house. The man with a family of five or six children will have an increase in the total monthly amount he receives and can devote to the upkeep of his family which will be larger than the total amount that the man with no children will get.
I do not believe that it is possible under the prevailing scales of wages in this country for a man in a city like the one I know best, the city of Quebec, to provide himself with a home and pay a rent which will cover the taxes on that home, interest and amortization on its cost, insurance and whatever maintenance there has to be. All that added together would run up to, at the very least, eleven or twelve per cent, and the cost of a fit housing unit in the city of Quebec fit for a family of man and wife and five or six children would not be less than $5,000. Now you cannot have a scale of wages which will enable a man getting the so-called labourer's wage to pay an economic rent on a property of $5,000. Plans have been suggested for federal housing schemes which would provide homes for those unable to pay an economic rent for them. That would involve the choosing of those who are going to occupy them, and under our system I would deplore the setting up of any bureau that could pick and choose and say to you, "You will get this kind of house for $15 or $18," and to you, "You will not get it for less than $22 or $24." If there is to be any general scheme whereby the condition of those in the low income brackets is alleviated, it must be a scheme whereby the rule cannot be disputed or made subject to anybody's favouritism; it must be a rule which anyone can recognize, which is not subject to any variation according to the more or less sympathetic appeal that this or that person may have to the administration or to those in charge of dispensing benefits from the public treasury.
It has been suggested that provision should have been made in the budget for this scheme. I am under the impression that everything which will not have been expended by March 31, 1945, although included in this budget will

Family Allowances
lapse, that the sums voted by this parliament and unexpended by that time will lapse. This bill provides that it shall come into force on July 1, 1945, so that there was no occasion for anything to appear in the budget to defray the cost of carrying out the provisions of the measure.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) gave at the resolution stage the reasons why the date of July 1, 1945, had been selected in- , stead of an earlier date. One of them was the time required to set up a system which will be workable and will provide for a fair and complete distribution of the allowances covered by the bill; the other was that between now and July 1, 1945, there will be a general election and it might not be considered proper to be distributing cheques on the eve of a general election.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, you are distributing promises now. I do not see much difference in the ethics of the matter.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: This is not a promise. As my colleague suggests, it is sought by this side of the house to make it a permanent law in the statutes of Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You are
just on the eve of an election.
_- Mr. ST. LAURENT:	There is another
reason. At the present time the whole Canadian people are operating under a system of ceilings which requires it to be said to each and everyone of us that during the war period, although it may be tough going, we have to put up with it and there cannot be any relief. That is another reason and, I think, a valid one. We have justification for the hope that this situation will not continue indefinitely, and that by July 1, 1945, it will be possible to alleviate to a certain degree the hardships under which we all have! been suffering, and which we have gladly accepted because of the purpose for which we have had to endure them. But when we begin to alleviate, that alleviation should be in the low income brackets; they are the ones which should get the first relief, and I am confident that that relief will prove substantial.
Have hon. members stopped to think what difference it will make in a household with seven or eight children to receive a monthly additional cheque of $40 or $50? Everything must be viewed in its proper proportion. For the man with an income of a thousand or twelve hundred dollars, an addition of four or five hundred dollars, or of five or six hundred dollars is substantial and enables that family to provide itself with many things which would be unavailable otherwise.
The last point to which I wish to refer is the suggestion that this should not be limited by the maximum age of sixteeen. These are matters of detail. What we are considering at the present time is the broad principle of whether or not the Canadian nation through the Canadian parliament should recognize a moral responsibility to come to the aid' of those who are in a situation which is not of their own making-a provision which is neces-' sary for the continuance of the Canadian economy as it exists and as this parliament wishes to maintain and foster it. On that principle, Mr. Speaker, I submit we should all be agreed.
Mrs. CORA T. CASSELMAN (Edmonton East): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) gave us this afternoon a comprehensive statement of the principles underlying this bill to provide for family allowances. I am thoroughly in favour of these principles as he has stated them and absolutely in favour of this measure as it has come*before the house. I hope that the house will, see fit to give it their favourable reception and make it one of the pillars of income security in this country.
Speakers this afternoon stated that there had not been much discussion of this matter.
I want to put before you this evening an indication of some of the discussion which there has been during the last number of years. True it was not until the depression that a great deal of thought was given to the matter. Those depression years shocked us by showing how large a proportion of our population was under a good level of subsistence for the individual. That was true not only in Canada but in Great Britain and the United1 States.
Following that depression, various surveys were made-by Beveridge, by Marsh, by the national planning board. Practically every democratic country has been turning its mind still more to the question of income security of right for individuals, and that is one reason why this measure is coming in now, and not twenty-five years ago.
It must be remembered that our income level of 1926 to 1929 was about the highest we ever had. It was not until later that we saw how much need there was for some such measure as this. But the thought goes back a good many years. The Prime Minister has ' referred to his book, "Industry and Humanity."
I will refer later to a book by Miss Eleanor Rathbone, published years ago. The thought among many people who have been considering this matter is not of recent date; it goes back twenty-five years. But if there is opposi-

Family Allowances
tion now, what would the opposition have been twenty-five years ago to the introduction of a measure like this? We have found out that, no matter how industrious and hardworking a man may be, there are occasions when his income does not cover all his expenses. He needs assistance by right. One of those occasions is the time when his family is large and when he receives a wage that is measured by "his skill in producing goods and not by the number of his family. It was not Cooperative Commonwealth Federation pressure that brought about that change in thinking. It is thinking that has been going on throughout different countries with regard to social security everywhere, through all parties.
The leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Cold-well)i,mentioned the boys who came to our doors for meals in the days of the depression. He might have mentioned us who prepared those meals and brought the boys into our houses,? gave them meals and were glad to do so, even though sometimes we were afraid for our lives of the men we brought in to feed. But wff brought them in and fed them, and many of us went into our savings, life insurance built up through the years for our children's education, to give help to them in those depression years. When we think of the men fighting now and remember the boys who came to our doors, we can think of sons who were deprived perhaps of some advantage because people saw the need of helping those boys and gave that help. I believe that we all participated in the help that was given them, and I do not think there is any party or class that is justified in saying that it alone suffered during the depression years. But that has turned our minds to social measures such as this. I differ from those who always find fault with the Canadian standard of living. It has increased in the last number of years, and in this connection I would quote the authority of people who have thought through these matters. I wish to quote a sentence or two from page 166 of Sir William Beveridge's report:
The real wages of labour, what the wage-earner could buy with his earnings, just before the present war, were in genera] about one-third higher than in 1900 for an hour less of work each day. What the wage-earner could buy, when earning had been interrupted by sickness, accident or unemployment or had been ended by old age. had increased in even larger proportion, though still inadequately by development of social insurance and allied services.
He goes on to deal with this question of how, when the wage-earner's income has been lessened, help can be given through state measures-help by right and not by charity, although charity has its place and still stands

as one of the greatest virtues. I He^,supports everything that he says with facts and figures and I am giving the references. I will not quote at any length because hon. members can find these passages for themselves, but at page 154 he says:
Social surveys of Britain between the two wars show that in the first thirty years of this century real wages rose by about one-third without reducing want to insignificance, and that the want which remained was almost wholly due to two causes, interruption or loss of. earning power, and large families.	Jt
That is the point with which we are now dealing. That is the main disability which we are trying to remove to a certain degree through these family allowances. There is no reason why the measure may not be changed later. There is no reason why the level that is given now may not be increased later on if that is found necessary. There is no reason why any province may not add to this if that province finds its standard of living such that it needs to add more to it. One cannot get away from the fact that the same wages cannot be made to cover the needs of a small family and a large one. Industry has never claimed that. Before such measures as these were introduced, back about 1926, if I remember correctly, Australia made a study of what they called the average family and the wages necessary to support that average family of five; but they found that not very many people came within that category, that assistance would be given where it was not needed, that money would not be spent to good advantage, so that that idea was not put into force.
The need is there, of course, and I could talk for hours on what ought to be done for children. I could discuss the obvious fact that children are our most precious possessions both individually and collectively, taking the nation as a whole. If I wanted to speak along that tenor there would be no end to what I could say, but I think the great majority of hon. members, in fact I am sure that all hon. members in this house, quite agree with all that. We are all in favour of doing the best we can for our children. Let us extend that beyond the children of our own families, beyond, if necessary, the children of our own province, to where the need is greatest and to where those children with their undernourishment, with their needs for education and for help, should have assistance by right from the state. It seems to me that it is fundamental to keep the welfare of the family always before us. It is in our tradition that the family welfare lies at the root of our civilization, and this is a measure for the

Family Allowances
preservation of that idea. I should like to refer now to a passage from Doctor Marsh's book at page 87:	[DOT]
Children's allowances are a clear part of a policy of a national minimum of the direct attack on poverty, where it is bound up with the strain imposed by a large family on a small income.
And this is from Beveridge's report at page 120, where he discusses thiee assumptions:
No satisfactory scheme of social security can be devised except on the following assumptions: (a) children's allowances for children up to the age of 15 or, if in full-time education, up to the age of 16.
He puts that first. I will not go on with the others because hon. members can find the reference for themselves. Again, I quote from Miss Elizabeth Wallace, executive secretary of the Canadian Association of Social Workers. This was written on July 8 of this year:
The Canadian Association of Social Workers, a professional organization representing some 800 social workers across Canada, in a recent submission to the dominion advisory committee on social security warmly commended the proposed introduction of family allowances.
You will find a section also in the report made by the women's committee, the subcommittee that sat under Doctor James' committee last year, a committee composed of women who were in business and professional life, comprising married women in their homes, women with and without children. They gave their sanction to a measure of children's allowances. I will not read that reference; later on I shall refer to something they said. This measure does not proclaim a cure-all for all our economic maladies and maladjustments. It is only one more piece in the picture which we are gradually putting together: old age pensions, unemployment insurance, soldier reestablishment, housing, floor under farm prices, floor under fish prices; physical fitness and other health measures we have discussed. There is your picture being built up bit by bit and you cannot do it altogether. It is often a question of which should come first, and the old argument is used about not starting in until you have the whole thing ready. I do not know anyone who progresses in that way in his own individual economy. He does a bit here and a bit there in order to cover his whole way of life.
This measure gives help at exactly the right point to those who are below the present income tax level or just above it. It is supplementary and complementary to wages. It should not raise the price of goods. Time after time the workers have found that, when their wages have gone up, the increase does not cover the goods they wanted to buy
because the price of goods has gone up with the increase in the wage-earners' salary. The real wages of labour have not risen as high as the apparent rise. This measure, being divorced from the wage rate, will give the spending power for goods that an increase in the wage rate itself might not give; and I wish to point out right here that minimum wage rates come under provincial administration. They are not under federal administration. We cannot touch that except indirectly. The provinces have that under their control and most of them are dealing with it. I think it will be found in the future that still more attention will be given to the minimum wage rates in the provinces throughout Canada.
We found in the depression years that there were many who needed help, that some who needed help most were too proud, had too much self-respect, were too sensitive to go to the authorities to ask for it. I regret that because among those people were some of our very best citizens, some of the most industrious and hard-working, the very salt of the earth. But they did not go for help because they were not prepared to take what they considered charity. I think their attitude was wrong, but still it was there.
The national resources planning board mentions that in its report, and from that we would draw the conclusion that people should have this as a right. When they are doing all they can to help themselves they should not have to plead for help. I should like to read a portion from the national resources planning board report where it mentions those who needed help and would not come for it. It will be found at page 155. The paragraph preceding the one which I am reading is interesting too, but time is limited:
These facts can be expressed in another way: In urban communities twenty-one per cent of all persons, and over twenty-five per cent of all children under sixteen years of age were in "non-relief" families (of two or more) that had incomes too low to provide an emergency level of living.
Those non-relief families were families that would not come for help and should have had it.
This was true even though nineteen per cent of all persons and almost twenty-seven per cent of all children were in families that received some relief in 1935. It should be noted, moreover, that these measures may well overstate the extent to which public aid is available to families whose incomes are insufficient to purchase the emergency budget. For a family was counted as being in receipt of relief if at any time during the year it had received public aid regardless of the duration of the receipt of relief.
Family Allowances

I should like the house to note that sometimes these figures have to be explained. A person in receipt of relief even for a short time was put in that category for that year. When you hear talk about the poor conditions remember that sometimes there is an explanation for high figures.. The quotation I have just given bears out my contention that there are many who should have had assistance but who did' not claim it for fear they might forfeit their own self-respect. Therefore, I like this aspect of the present measure. The allowance is to be given for all children, rich or poor. There is no means test. No school child with the cruelty of the young will have any good reason for sneering at another child whose father is in receipt of this allowance. It is his by right, being the father of a family. He has a status which the state recognizes by the contribution he makes to that state in the raising of his family. That feature deserves widespread commendation because it eliminates the cost of administering any means test. The loss of exemption on income tax will work almost automatically in some cases. I think that is a very good feature of it.
The rates are somewhat more than in Australia and New Zealand. Australia does not give an allowance for the first child and New Zealand has a means test. This is not a full subsistence. That has been pointed out. We have never thought that it should be a full subsistence, rather the contrary. There are privileges of a home, privileges of having children that the individual is quite willing to pay for. He will have extra here, but the basic responsibility will rest on the individual and I think they are privileges that he will be very glad to shoulder. I know the women will.
The allowances are free of income tax. That means that employers do not have to figure out new rates of deduction from wages, and that is good. Will this be an inflationary measure? We are accused of that. We do not want to increase spending during the war period. Both Australia and New Zealand have extended their family allowances. The Irish Free State adopted it only in February of this year, not the measure we have here but a somewhat similar measure. Why should not a low income group family have a chance to lay up some savings for the post-war period, especially when there are children whose future has to be planned? I deplore the suspicion that has been cast on the poor that they will not save it for the proper purpose. Increased income should go into savings now for the duration of the war. Many a mother has said to me, "I would like to buy more victory bonds.

My oldest boy is over there, but I cannot afford any more for them now." Mothers know where to put the money that is earmarked for the children. If the war is still in progress and civilian goods are not on the market, many and many a parent will put a good bit of this money into savings accounts against the day when money may be spent without the danger of causing inflation. Perhaps it will build up a fund for education. But when it can be spent the great bulk of it will go into the things that must be bought over and over again in a large family-food, clothing, fuel and things of that kind that disappear rapidly because people need them.
It has been pointed out that it means a market within the country for farmers and for industry, and that means employment. We want to forestall any recurrence of any depression. We want to ward it off before it occurs, and this is a factor toward that. We must never allow the ball to get rolling toward a depression again. I think this is the best means of its kind. Far better than building additional public works, for example, which are non-productive, is to build citizens. To build citizens may even be better than to build rural electrification systems. We need them too, of course. We need them for full employment which is the chief factor; but we are looking for that in other ways, full employment through a floor on farm prices and things that have been brought in and discussed here. But those things of themselves do not solve the problem of the large family.
The bill, as was pointed out by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) is within the competence and jurisdiction of the federal parliament. It is not necessary when making non-contributory grants, to carry on long discussions with representatives of provincial authorities. I beieve that has been the trouble in connection with our comprehensive health bill, which has been before the social security committee for two years. It requires discussions between federal and provincial authorities. Already we have laid the foundation for a far-reaching measure in that connection, which I hope to see carried further along in the near future.
The provinces have, of course, helped in matters of social security within their sphere of administration, and several of them are making a good job of it. Especially has that been so in recent years, since the realization of the importance of these measures has been brought home to the people through the events that have occurred. This family allowance is to go directly from the federal treasury to the individual. It need not wait until all or substantially all of the provinces have
-JULY 25, 1944
Family Allowances
given their assent, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) said had to be the case in connection with increases in old age pensions. The health bill will come, but this measure will be of more immediate assistance, even though it is not to come into force until July 1, 1945. I do not think we have the trained personnel to put it into force sooner. Hon. members should have heard Doctor Davidson speak of the woeful lack of trained personnel for the administration of services at the present time. We have seven schools training social service workers; I should like to see the government give larger grants to those schools. I should not be at all surprised if such action should follow the step we are taking here. We need trained personnel to administer these services. We need the men back from the front also, to help carry a measure of this kind. We may have them here by July 1, 1945; I pray to God we do.
Some people say that we should provide these services rather than the cash allowances, but many of them have to do with matters entirely within provincial jurisdiction. Health and education, for instance, and even low cost housing may be dealt with by the provincial or municipal authorities. Some of the provinces are looking after the matter of housing at the present time, and the federal government is ready to extend the operations of the National Housing Act. Hon. members may read the speech of the Minister of Finance on May 11 for details in this connection. We need greatly increased educational facilities. Last year Ontario provided a large number of scholarships, which was all to the good. They will help to provide for children over sixteen who show ability and the desire to go ahead with their education. Alberta also has done excellent work in extending and equipping her schools. That is the present trend. It has not been forced upon us by opposition parties; the need has been brought to our attention by the events of the last few years and by thinking people who have been looking forward, as has our Prime Minister. Voluntary associations are increasing in efficiency, but they need more and more money. Perhaps they will get a little of this money to help carry on their excellent work. They give & real service to the community, and fill a very great need.
Some people say that cash benefits will not meet the needs. They will, to some extent at least, even if we do not have the services organized for people to buy with that money. Take the dietary surveys made by the Canadian council on nutrition. Doctor Pett, who heads the nutrition branch of the Department of Pensions and National Health, in association with Doctor George Hunter made one of these surveys in my own city of Edmonton back in the fall of 1939, and his conclusions will be found at page 34 of "Canadian Studies in Nutrition". They made similar studies in Toronto, Halifax and Quebec, and found that Toronto children needed better nutrition, just as much as the children of Quebec needed it. Here is a summary of his conclusions following the Edmonton survey:
' ^An analysis of our data by Professor Andrew Stewart, of the department of economics, shows the effect of income in the following way. Two groups were chosen:	firstly, a group with
incomes per person up to $250 a year, and secondly, a group with incomes of $251-$500 a year. These we shall refer to as the "low" and "high" income groups.
Calories:	The low income group showed 60
per cent deficient; the high income group 48 per cent deficient.
Protein: The low income group showed 64 per cent deficient; the high income group 48 per cent deficient.
Fat: The low income group showed 57 per cent deficient; the high income group 30 per cent deficient.
Calcium:	The low income group showed 70
per cent deficient; the high income group 50 per cent deficient.
Iron: The low income group showed 71 per cent deficient; the high income group 60 per cent deficient.
It has been shown that an increase in income will mean an increase in nutrition and in all those things the children need. In this report it is also stated that forty per cent of the people studied were adequately fed; forty per cent got about three-quarter of what they needed, while nearly twenty per cent got little more than half what they needed. Food is not fairly distributed in the family. The worst fed member is the mother; the best fed is the father, the wage-earner. Of the children, except for vitamin C, the worst fed is the teen age youngster who, few people realize, needs more food than the average adult. The report goes on.
Our results indicate that diet tends to improve automatically with increase of income.
And it is increase of income that we are talking about here. They also state that the three chief reasons for deficiency are, first, lack of money; second, lack of knowledge of what to buy, third, indifference as to whether or not the diet is sufficient. Running all through the findings of our social security committee was the thread of the disaster, the malnutrition or whatever you like to call it, caused by lack of income. More than once Doctor Heagerty mentioned that fact. He spoke of blindness, for instance, in New Brunswick and Quebec, saying that for a long time blindness was not connected with malnutrition but
Family Allowances

that surveys indicated that it had a direct ratio to the low income group, a direct ratio to poverty. We were told also that the rate of infant mortality is higher in the low income groups than in the higher income groups. So that it comes back to the lack of money, which we are now trying to remedy.
We should extend these services, of course, but I believe that providing this money will give more immediate relief along this line. I would call this direct evidence that income does make a difference in health and nutrition standards. There should be a tremendous improvement even during the time that would be required to organize the services upon which some people are putting so much emphasis. If we intend to raise the standard of living throughout the country, as we say we do, by the introduction of this measure, we must begin with something that will bring immediate results. I contend that in these quotations from recognized authorities in their fields I have brought proof that the family income does make a difference in connection with general deficiency. It means not only physical improvement, for mental improvement follows physical betterment. I taught school, and I know, as many hon. members know, how difficult it is to teach children who are undernourished. There is also a great difference in morals. An improvement in the physical wellbeing of children brings an improvement mentally and morally as well, as every mother knows.
In the first formative years of a child's life foundations are laid for a great many things. The size of the child, his health, his instinctive reactions, his enterprise, his ambitions- all have their beginning during the first few years of his life, and those are years that cannot be repeated.
It is in the pre-school life of a child that he frequently needs help of this kind. Free school lunches would not touch the pre-school child; he would not come under those benefits. I think these other services will follow because the public conscience has been awakened. The provincial and municipal authorities have their responsibilities as long as they are taking the taxpayers' money, but they are progressing to meet their responsibilities. They will be ready to organize services more rapidly when the federal government has instituted a measure such as this. Income tax exemptions do not reach down far enough; they do not get to those who would benefit the most because they are below the tax level. If the consolidated revenue fund is to be used to provide these moneys, into that fund will go the tax on luxuries-as it should.
Opponents of this measure say that the money will not be spent wisely. I believe that a great proportion of it will go for things that are necessary and will be used for child development. This committee of women, under the chairmanship of Mrs. McWilliams, which was a subcommittee of Doctor James' committee on reconstruction, drew up a report, part of which I should like to read. Before I leave Doctor Pett, he had this to say about health:
Let me be quite clear on one point. Canada is actually healthier now than twenty-five years ago.
Then I should like to quote from page 30 of the report of the committee under the chairmanship of Mrs. McWilliams, as follows:
(a) The subcommittee strongly supports introduction of a system of children's allowances and hopes that the establishment of this system will follow health insurance as soon as possible. It is the only system yet devised which will remove the poverty arising from the fact that a man's wage must be based on the product of a man's labour and not on the size of his family. The subcommittee believes that these allowances should apply to all families with children.
With regard to what is more closely to the point I was speaking about, that supervision is necessary over the spending of the money, this report states:
(d) It is suggested that the administration of these allowances will have to include some supervision in cases where it may be necessary because of the incompetence or unwillingness of the mother to use the allowances for the purposes for which they are given. Experience has already shown in relation to cash relief and to dependents' allowances that these cases will be few. This supervision could remain in the provincial departments of welfare where these departments are in widespread operation. The cooperation of the schoolteacher and public health, school or rural nurse should be sought in checking up on this matter.
I think we shall have the cooperation of the provinces. I have no doubt we shall have the cooperation of all these different agencies in the dominion. They will be ready to cooperate in seeing that the people know a little more about spending money. But I believe that the real reason for its being spent wisely will be the love of the parents for their children. Doctor Pett has mentioned that the poorest fed person in the family is the mother. He had splendid cooperation from those people whom he saw in Edmonton. It did not depend upon their income whether they cooperated; they were glad to tell him details in order that he might make this survey.
Some say that the misuse will be limited to about one per cent of those who receive the allowances. That figure is based on surveys made in connection with other allowances that have been paid. We asked Doctor James

Family Allowances
about it when he was before the social security committee. It has been suggested that this bill should be sent to that committee, and this matter has come up to a very limited extent in our surveys. He said:
If these matters are administered through a local organization composed of local ci tizens who are familiar with the habits, the aptitudes and the abilities of the people with whom they are dealing, the possibility of diverting funds from the purpose tor which they are provided would decrease very sharply from an initially low level.
He also made this remark:
I am perfectly willing to admit that the two are interchangeable to a very large extent-
That is, services and cash income.
-as I suggested a little while ago, but I am not sure that you can entirely replace the cash allowances by such things as low-cost housing, rural electrification, free meals at school and free hostels in thinly populated areas. By means of such provisions as these you can reduce the cash bonus to a very low level; hut I am not convinced at the moment that you can completely eliminate it in the case of large families. I hat would be my tentative judgment, but I am open to conviction when a detailed scheme has been worked out for the provision of such material assistance.
The August, 1943, Monthly Labour Review issued by the department of labor of the United States contains this statement:
In March, 1942, after years of opposition to iamily allowances, the British trade union congress, through its general council, reversed its attitude and agreed with the labour party on the need for a national scheme of child endowment, which should be a charge on the state.
In 1925 the independent labour party in Great Britain adopted a children's allowance plan. The trades unions opposed it, but in 1942 they reversed their stand and I think that is their position to-day. I should also like to quote Doctor Davidson, executive director of the Canadian welfare council. Speaking about family allowances, he says:
This then is the keystone of our arch, the foundation stone of the edifice of social security which we must start to build to-day for the Canada of to-morrow-full employment, including the development of socially useful pro-gi amines such as housing and other projects, supported by an adequate wage structure guaranteed by law, and a system of family-allowances to supplement the worker's wages by an amount necessary to fill the gap between his earning power and his family responsibilities.
I should like also to refer to Eleanor F. Rathbone's book, "The Case for Family Allowances". She has served a long apprenticeship in public affairs as a social investigator, as a case worker, as a school manager, as a worker for women's suffrage and other feminist reforms, before becoming a member of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom.
Many of the reforms she sponsored eventually became law during the reconstruction period which followed the great war. Back in 1924 she wrote her first book on family allowances which was entitled, "The Disinherited Family", and this was followed in 1940 by "The Case for Family Allowances". I quote from page 63 as follows:
The best schemes-best on its merits and most fitted to meet the special needs of war time- would be a wholly state paid, national scheme covering the entire child population up to at least the age of fifteen at a rate of at least five shillings per child. It is significant -that so great an economist with so wide a vision as Mr. Maynard Keynes thinks such a scheme desirable and practicable. Nor does it necessarily follow from his argument that it should be combined with his own scheme of deferred earnings, provided that it is accompanied by other methods of effectively limiting all but really necessary consumption during war time.
She makes an interesting review of the case for family allowances. I could go on to quote many other authorities and experts who have had this matter under consideration to show that it has met with approval in a great many circles. I grant that it has also met with disapproval in some circles, but those who have given it approval have had just as wide experience and knowledge as those on the contrary side.
My chief concern about family allowances is its effect, upon our Canadian homes, on the opportunity to preserve and strengthen our family life, on the building of our citizens throughout Canada. There is something beyond that. I do not think we can afford not to pay these allowances because the costs of not paying them are not money costs; they are costs in ill health, costs in the upkeep of hospitals and asylums, costs in juvenile delinquency and costs in many other forms.
Perhaps our hope of peace in the postwar world lies in the crusade against disease, poverty, undernourishment, want and ignorance. This is one column advancing toward our goal of better human relationships within our country, yes and beyond our country; it is a part of the freedom from want and freedom from fear.


Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first to refer to the remarks made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) when he spoke this evening on the cost of housing in the province of Quebec.
I would- remind the house that I spoke on the subject of housing on the 26th of June last when I described what was taking place in the United States. I do not deny that the cost of housing is beyond the reach of those in the low income group; and it was because of that fact that I suggested a plan of giving
Family Allowances

them relief, the plan which is in operation in the United States, and also in Great Britain. Under the United States housing act, the local housing authority is lent ninety per cent of the cost of building houses at a low rate of interest. I do not intend to repeat what I said then except to refer to the fact that in the city of Montreal some few months ago a project of low-cost housing was undertaken by Mr. George Spinney, and the government at that time agreed to lend the housing authority a sum of money up to ninety per cent of the cost at a rate of three per cent interest which I think too high. The rate in the United States is two per cent, and I suggest that might very well be the rate established by this government for work done by housing authorities in any part of Canada. I am quite sure that if that were done it would greatly relieve slum conditions, which are a menace to any city or any rural district. I shall not refer further to this because it will be found at page 4146 of Hansard.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) spoke to-day on the question of slums. I did not quite follow his reasoning when he said that this measure would help to relieve slums. If a man received an addition of S40 a month, or $480 a year, it would not provide him with enough money to pay an economic rent. It is recognized everywhere that not more than twenty per cent or one-fifth of a man's income can be devoted to the payment of rent. This amount mentioned by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) would provide only $8 a month. It is impossible to get a house of modern type under $20 a month, and the difference would have to be made up in the form of a subsidy. This subsidy would be greatly assisted if the government would lend the housing authorities money at a low rate of interest, to be amortized over a period of, say thirty years.
The Prime Minister gave statistics this afternoon of the percentage of recruits turned down from a lack of nutrition. I should like to give the statistics that were published a little while ago by Great Britain, comparing the numbers in category A in the last war with the numbers in the same category in this war. In the first world war Britain found that only thirty-six per cent of the men drafted for military service were up to the full normal standard of health. Immediately after the first world war Great Britain started a large programme of housing. The full effect of that was felt when recruiting for the second world war began. In the present war eighty-three per cent of the men called up by Great Britain were classified as possessing the full normal

standard of health. In commenting on this improvement the London Times said on July 20, 1939:
The minister of health was fully justified in declaring that the results of these medical examinations of the militia men are a striking tribute to the housing and other public health services.
Great Britain did not then have nor has it now family allowances.
As I said before, the moral and physical effects due to vile living conditions pass none of us by. We all pay far more for slums and bad housing than we would ever be called upon to pay for the erection of clean decent houses for every member of our community.
The Prime Minister spoke to-day about our taking better care of animals, and of the research that was being undertaken in connection with the health of animals. I do not think that is quite a parallel case with man, because when an animal is suffering from tuberculosis or Bang's disease we kill the animal, whereas we put men or women or children suffering from tuberculosis in a hospital and try to cure them.
May I remind the Prime Minister that when he quoted from Saint Paul's teaching that we should bear one another's burdens, he failed to quote another passage in the same chapter to the Galatians when Saint Paul said that every man should bear his own burden. That is to say, let us give a man the opportunity to work and he will be happier bearing his own burden. In his all-embracing attitude of international sympathy and assistance in a contracting world it would be just as logical for the Prime Minister to make this bill extend its benefits to the large families of India and China's underpaid workers.
The Prime Minister implied that this money would perhaps stop another depression. I would ask him, what about the dole?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is not a dole.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: A great deal of money was handed out during the last depression, but it did not stop it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The dole cost this country over $900,000,000 altogether.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: My hon. friend says that it cost this country over $900,000,000.
The Prime Minister also spoke of children being a liability.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I spoke of their being an asset as well.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I am afraid that he does not know much about farmers because many of them could not get a living without^ children to help them. The other day I visited an

Family Allowances
adjoining farm where I saw a child of seven years of age driving a tractor; another child of ten assisted his father to bale hay on one of these modem machines.
I take second place to nobody in my efforts over the years to assist the underprivileged. During a period of, twenty-five years, while acting as surgeon in a large hospital, at least fifty per cent of my work was devoted to operations on the poor without any recompense, and I was very happy indeed to be able to render that service. I am not unique in this particular; every medical man and every surgeon in all parts of the country are doing the same thing.


Mr. DUPUIS:: We would like you to continue your "operations" in favour of social security.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I may refer for a moment to the social security committee of which I was a member and the work we have done during the last two years on the subject of national health insurance, which has a direct bearing on the bill we are now considering. Since February, 1942, when an advisory committee on health insurance was created under the chairmanship of Doctor J. J. Heagerty, an intensive study of public health and medical care has been made by them. In carrying out these studies the committee obtained the views of sixteen national groups who appointed their own committees to study the subject of health insurance. These consisted of the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Dental Association, the Canadian Nursing Association, and hospital and other affiliated associations. The majority favoured a provincial plan of health insurance aided by dominion grants. The question of the health of the people of Canada was also made the subject of the meeting of the Dominion Council of Health in 1941. From all this work a draft bill was presented to the committee on social security at the beginning of the 1943 session, and since then we have heard 117 witnesses, representing all phases of public opinion on the subject. We have just concluded consideration of this draft bill, but were not able to deal with the financial clauses, since these must be the subject of agreement between the dominion and the provinces. This means that it must await a dominion-provincial conference, the date of which has not yet been set, so that this important piece of legislation will have to be left over until next year.
I have given the house a brief account of the work which 'has been put into the proposed bill of national health insurance. In
contrast with this I would ask hon. members to compare the method adopted in regard to another social security measure of equal importance, the proposed family allowances bill. This bill, of a much more controversial nature, is brought down, as my leader said to-day, in the last days of the last session of a dying parliament, without any consideration at all, although it is not to become effective until July, 1945.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend on what authority he says that this is the last session of this parliament?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I assume it is to be the last
session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is quite
different.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: If I am wrong in my assumption, perhaps the Prime Minister will correct me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have made it very plain that the life of this parliament does not expire until the 17th of April udkt. It is quite possible that there will be another session after this. I am not saying that there will be; I am not saying there will not be; but when my hon. friend says that this is the last session, then I ask him on what authority he makes the statement.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The Prime Minister has not denied that it may be the last session.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, why this great haste. If so urgently needed, why was it not made immediately effective?


Mr. McLARTY:: The hon. member knows that, as in the case of unemployment insurance, the setting up of the administration machinery must be given very careful and studied consideration.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I would ask, Mr. Speaker,
whether it would be improper to suggest that it may have some connection with an election in an adjoining province, when it is hoped that this bill will assist the return of a Liberal government. That province because of its large families will derive the greatest benefit from this measure, at the expense of the other provinces, particularly Ontario, which pays one-half of the taxes of Canada.
I would not like the house to think for a moment that I am against providing for the care of children in families where the wage-earner himself is unable to provide adequately for them. I am entirely in favour of giving help to those low income group families through social services to ensure that the
Family Allowances

children will benefit by better nutrition, better educational facilities, better playground facilities, medical care, and better housing-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. gentleman
permit a question?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: -which are of the greatest importance in preventing juvenile delinquency as well as in promoting health.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I take it that he will not.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: But can any one guarantee
that the five to eight dollars allowed for each child will provide anything like the advantages in health and well-being which the services to which I have just referred will do?


Paul Joseph James Martin: How long would it take to get these services?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You have had years to try and do it. Why did you not do it?


Thomas Vien: Order.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I think it is time that some of these services were augmented. I believe some are in existence and would be helped very much by a subsidy.
We all agree that additional assistance is needed for the wage-earner in the low wage group with a large family. Cash grants would seem to be the easiest and perhaps the simplest way-


Mr. CLEAVER:: And the most effective.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: -but in a certain number of cases there is fear that the money will not reach the children.	*
Although I have suggested the alternative of greatly improved social services, no doubt in certain cases these will have to be supplemented by a cash grant, but I am opposed to giving out these grants indiscriminately. I would make exception in the case of those members of our armed forces who have offered their lives overseas in defence of our country. The least we can do for them is to make these bonuses immediately available for their dependents.
The most socially-developed countries of Europe, namely Sweden. Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands, have not accepted the principle of family allowances.


Hughes Cleaver: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: After I am through. 1 would prefer to finish my remarks now.


Hughes Cleaver: The hon. member overlooks the fact that the Scandinavian countries-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Are you a Scandinavian?


Hughes Cleaver: -are overpopulated.


Thomas Vien: Order.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The hon. member who has just interrupted will have his opportunity to speak when I have finished. Neither have these countries to which I have referred been involved in the war., and therefore they will not have the large war debts that we shall experience in this country.


Hughes Cleaver: But they are overpopulated.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The British government is not entirely in favour of this proposition but would rather meet the problem through welfare services.


Thomas Vien: Order. I must insist that hon. gentlemen on both sides refrain from interrupting the hon. member and allow him tc finish his speech.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: However, owing to the great suffering imposed on them by bombing and the impossibility of developing social services as they would like and expect to do later on, there is great urgency and the government may accept the scheme as a temporary measure. but with several strong reservations. We are by no means in the same position as England which, if it bring it in, will do so because of immediate need. It is not a question of need in this country now when people have more money than ever before, whatever may be the case in the post-war period.
The countries to which I have referred, after thorough investigation, rejected the cash bonus, principle. They practise instead aid on the basis of need. This government's plan is basically wrong because it disregards need. The cash subsidy is given automatically without regard to family conditions and with no guarantee that the children will benefit. The moral, physical, cultural and general welfare of the children is left absolutely to chance. Some labour unions have expressed themselves as opposed to family allowances because this may be made an excuse for keeping wages down to the minimum. On the other hand, it is stated that no industry can afford to pay wages which will enable the average working man to raise a large family. But I would ask, why should the average working man be expected to raise a large family? I know this is encouraged, and, indeed, may be necessary where man-power has been seriously depleted because of war or epidemic or where we are engaged in building up an army for national defence. I am afraid

Family Allowances
that if these cash payments are to be made on this basis they will not fulfil their objective, for the money will not go to the provinces which did most of the fighting and suffered most of. the casualties.


Hughes Cleaver: I rise to a point of order.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: If we are to encourage large families, I think-


Thomas Vien: Order. There is a point of order before the Chair.


Hughes Cleaver: I would like to ask Your Honour whether there is a rule in this house against the reading of essays.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: All right. From now on you will get it.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: It all depends upon who is doing the reading.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You want to be smart. Well, you will get it from now on about
reading speeches.


Thomas Vien: Order. Hon. gentlemen
must not interrupt.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I do not think I am trespassing upon the rules any more than any other member. I am trying to follow consecutively along a certain line of thought and must therefore follow my notes.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: They have asked for it and they will get it.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: If we are to encourage large families, then I think care should be taken that they are eugenically of the kind that will be most likely to improve our race. This bill will result in many cases in bonusing families who have been unwilling to defend their country. May I venture to suggest that our object should be quality rather than quantity. It is surely time for parents to give some consideration to the question of how many children they can afford to bring up. It is not fair to bring children into the world just to satisfy an uncontrollable impulse without thought of whether sufficient food and other necessities will be available for them. Surely there must be some alternative to baby bonuses which will preserve the sanctity of the family, maintain a normal birthrate, and place the major economic burden of raising children where it belongs, upon the parents. Why should a hard working man who has planned a normal sized family have to curtail his wishes because he is heavily taxed in order to help to support a large family of shiftless people, and perhaps in some cases the lazy man who counts on the
state keeping him and whatever he likes to bring into the world? Hitler used this method as part of his campaign to raise the birthrate when the nazis set out to equalize the economic burden of raising big families through the family equalization fund. The nazis paid such big subsidies for children that it was actually possible in Germany for a man to earn more by begetting babies than he did by working for a living. I am not opposed to aid for children, but I am opposed to this particular form of aid, family allowances, because it gives no guarantee that the children will benefit, because it will be costly and cumbersome in operation, full of inequalities, and finally because it is the essence of the dole. Another major objection to cash family allowances is that they place upwards of two million families, more than two-thirds of the families in this country, on the public payroll. Every month they will look to their fairy godmother, Ottawa, for a hand-out.
Another reason why I oppose this bill is that it is unconstitutional and an invasion of provincial rights, as my leader pointed out this afternoon. It should not have been introduced before having a dominion-provincial conference and getting their consent to an amendment to the British North America Act, which amendment, would then have to be adopted by the British parliament. Is it not amusing to observe a Liberal government, which laughed at Aberhart's $25 a month to all families, suddenly bringing down a baby bonus proposition which will cost the country $200 million or more? This bonus will be given to children up to fifteen years of age, whereas even in Russia it is proposed to bonus children only up to five years of age. It should be remembered that the government will get the money for their largesse out of the people by taxes. This means that everyone who pays taxes will have less money to educate and bring up his own family. I believe that it is a fact that sixty-three per cent of the families with ten or more children live in the province of Quebec. Contrast this with British Columbia where families are small and where forty per cent have no children living at home. When eight provinces realize that they are being taxed for the benefit of one province, will it not accentuate the disunity which has shaken Canada from coast to coast, because the government chose to listen to the powerful voice of this same province which refused to share equally with others in fighting the common enemy? Will these eight provinces not be justified in concluding that this is a subsidy for votes as well as for babies, and that this

Family Allowances

undigested bill has been rushed in before a provincial election and a pending federal election with the object of influencing votes in the government's favour?


Mr. J. A. BLANCHETTE (Compton):: It is with a deep sense of appreciation that I rise on this occasion to support this measure of family allowances. I alreadj" had indicated its importance to this house by having inserted on the order paper on January 27, 1942, the following resolution:
Resolved that, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of granting family allowances, taking into consideration the respective jurisdiction of both federal and provincial parliaments, and that the matter should be referred to the committee on industrial and international relations, with instructions to inquire and make a report.
This measure was announced in the speech from the throne in January last, and I must compliment the government upon bringing in this bill which I consider of the greatest importance for the social welfare of our people. No other single social measure could be introduced in this or any other parliament or legislative assembly which offers at one and the same time so many ramifications into and corrections of our economic ills, and establishes at the same time a beacon of light in the way of social progress to humanity.
When Sir William Beveridge honoured this august body with his conference in this very building on May 25, 1943, as will be seen in report No. 13 of the special committee on social security I asked him the following questions :
Mr. Blanchette:	Would our distinguished
guest care to give any comment as to his appreciation of children's allowances in any plan of social security?
Sir William Beveridge: I am very glad you asked that question because children's allowances are the most revolutionary thing in my report, and they have been accepted in Britain. I propose children's allowances for two main reasons, i'he first is that without children's allowances you cannot abolish want. Poverty in Britain before the war was due to two causes. It was due either to the interruption of earnings or a man having too large'a family for his wages We do not believe that Britain can get on unless there are a substantial number of large families. Unless we can get an average of nearly three children born to a family the British race will diminish and finally die out. Therefore there must be large families and we want some large families. In order to abolish want you have got to have children's allowances. The secondary reason is that if you give allowances for children only when people are unemployed or sick you will sometimes have cases where people have as much money when they are sick or unemployed as they can earn or even more. That is a bad situation. There are quite a number of other reasons for children's allowances, such as its effect upon the population and the quality of the population which I will

not go into now. Until recently there was considerable opposition to children's allowances on the part of some trade unions, but at the last trade union congress in September last they accepted children's allowances. It has been accepted by the government as to its principle. I think you may take it that it will be adopted.
I should be very much interested to see whether or not you adopt it in this country. I hope you will because I believe it is a good thing.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the opinion of Sir William Beveridge on the matter after his extensive and exhaustive research and study. It is my firm opinion that Great Britain will be accepting family allowances very shortly if it has not done so already, in view of Sir William Beveridge's conviction in the matter and the progress of thought which he has brought in that direction.
Our own Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his book "Industry and Humanity", which he published in 1918, gave an impetus toward the betterment of mankind by his enunciation in his treatise, by his contribution of a sound and comprehensive basis for constructive and combined effort which may prove of a very special value to an understanding and effective solution of the social problems of our day. Mr. King believes, as enunciated in his book "that considerations of health, broadly interpreted as denoting physical, mental and moral well-being lie at the basis of all efficiency and at the very foundation of society. In recognition of the health of workers and their social well-being the emphasis will shift from the sacredness of possession to the sacredness of life, from the value of property and its rights to the value of personality and its rights, from material resources to human resources". The elimination of fear, social and industrial, will be found to be at the root of all regulation toward the betterment of mankind. "There is a legitimate fear", says Mr. King, whereas with respect to work done compensation is wholly inadequate and insufficient, to sustain life; there is a legitimate fear where despite willingness to work, work is not to be had; there is a legitimate fear where through sickness and invalidity the capacity to earn is gone and the savings of months and years drawn and exhausted; there is a legitimate fear where age is confronted with the alternative of poverty or dependence; there is a legitimate fear where the woman is suddenly left without support for her children. Each and everyone of these fears, Mr. Speaker, is susceptible to be the lot of many of our family heads when forty-six per cent of these received a salary under one thousand dollars in Canada in 1941, and again when in the United States forty-seven per cent of the spending units

Family Allowances
received less than one thousand dollars in 1935 and 1936. True it is that legislation has been passed to meet, in a certain measure, practically all the fears above enumerated, save the latter, the fear of the heads of large families that they may be unable to bring up their families in keeping with the value of the human personality. In my opinion this measure providing family allowances will make life much more bearable for those who have not, without in any way endangering the way of life of those who have. However, the latter will have the added satisfaction of knowing they are helping their fellow men and humanity in general, and that feeling will be with them forever. That is the only wealth we can keep. In a brief on the Marsh report the Canadian association of social workers take the following stand in regard to family allowances:
The association approves the principle of family allowances and welcomes their inclusion in the Marsh report. Such grants have been general in Europe, and an essential part of the social security scheme of Australia and New Zealand. In Canada, a considerable proportion of our population is now supported by dependents' allowances. We therefore approve the universal application of this principle by extending these allowances to the whole population. The payments made by dependents' allowance represent our most comprehensive Canadian experience to date; it has been tested and proved in practice. The Canadian association of social workers therefore suggests that a scale of grants be adopted not less adequate than that of the dependents' allowance.
Our own parliament made a study of family allowances, through the standing committee on industrial and international relations, in February, 1929, so that it will be seen that this question, which has been discussed by sociologists and economists for the past fifty or sixty years, is now being given the prominence and importance it merits. What greater merit, what greater importance could any proposed measure have than that of the welfare of mankind 7 The question of family allocations made considerable headway after the last war; in the six years from 1918 to 1924 there was definite progression of thought in regard to the principle of this legislation, which was adopted by France in 1918 and by Belgium in 1921. Definite progress was made in some fifteen other European countries, as well as in New South Wales and New Zealand. The International Labour Review for April, 1940, has this to say in regard to the scope of family allowances:'
In Belgium and France practically the whole population nowr receives family allowances. In New Zealand and New South Wales the schemes also apply to all categories of citizens and activities, with the important reservation that allowances are paid only to families with a limited income. In Italy and Spain the basic regulations
100-337J
provide for the extension of the allowances to all the main branches of economic activity, but only for workers, and in Chile only for salaried employees. In Hungary the payment of allowances is restricted to workers in industry and commerce.
The principle of family allocations is not established on the basis of charity, but rather on the high plane of social justice, for upon the maintenance of the family depends the very maintenance of the state. The family allowance is based on the principle of, the natural and inalienable right of each and everyone of us not only to obtain the means of his existence but to a wage which will permit him and the members of his family to live rather than merely exist. As it has been established in the providential order that man must not live alone, that he is destined to establish and bring up a family, so, therefore, must it be admitted that a well organized economic regime must be such that all men of normal capacity may be able to supply their needs and those of their families.
I will not undertake a philosophic discussion of the right of ownership which Christian philosophers, economists and sociologists recognize as established in the very nature of man, taking precedence over the nature of the state. I wall say, however, that from this right of ownership emanate many restrictions, among them the right of a lawfully constituted authority to direct and orient the right of property toward the common good and welfare of its subjects. Upon this right is predicated the power of the state to legislate upon contracts, wills and transfers of property; to levy taxes upon property for the administration of the state, and so on. The state has a mission to look after the general welfare of its subjects, and it also has the power and right to modify its economic regime if that regime is opposed to the principles of social and distributive justice, in order that it may further, as much as possible, the general welfare of its members. I need not pursue minutely or in detail the rapid transformation of our economic system which has resulted in ever-incre'asing production, creating at times, in some parts of the world, the erroneous belief or conviction that a human person was a mere economic chattel, to be treated accordingly.
It may be well for us to stop here for a moment to consider what has been the fate of the Canadian family of ordinary means, which is by far the most numerous in our economic set-up. Upon that consideration we may predicate a conclusion as to whether this proposed measure of family allowances is a tangible expression of the Atlantic charter or of the new order, aimed at the advancement and
536S
Family Allowances

betterment of humanity in general. Economists agree that the family of five is a normal family; that is, the father, mother and three children. This family of five is considered necessary to at least maintain the population of a country. I believe also this is the numerical basis upon which statistics in regard to family budgets are established for the various countries of the world. The Marsh report establishes that the minimum amount which this family of five must have for its budget should be not less than $1,471.60, apportioned as follows:
Food, $34.66 per month.
Lodging, $25 per month.
Recreation, periodicals, and so forth, $1.39 per month.
Life insurance, medical care and other exigencies, $3.57 per week.
Tramways, 75 cents per week.
General furniture upkeep, 50 cents per week.
A serious examination of these items will show that there is no exaggeration in the figures given, unless it be that they are not high enough. This minimum budget of $1,471 as established by Marsh is corroborated by the welfare council of Toronto as being practically the results of its investigations. In 1941, as has been stated already, forty-six per cent of the heads of families in Canada received a salary of less than $1,000 a year. There are in Canada 225,640 families of two children; 135,240 families with three children, and 223,940 families with four children or more.
May it not therefore be logically deduced from this statement that forty-six per cent of the heads of families in Canada having an annual salary of under $1,000 have to put up with unsanitary home conditions, malnutrition and are just about eking out an existence in this land of plenty and unbounded resources? May it not also be deduced that there is something wrong with an economic system that will tolerate the payment of such revenue to the heads of forty-six per cent of the families of the country? Does not this proposed measure of family allowances offer an immediate and necessary relief to those afflicted families? As I stated at the outset of my remarks, family allocations are not based upon the principle of charity as has been asserted in some quarters. They are based upon the following considerations.
First, the head of the family is rendering a service to the state by maintaining or increasing the population of the country. It is selfevident that a single person or a family without children cannot be said to be either maintaining or increasing the population of the country. Second, the population of the country is considered a great factor in the wealth of the nation. In the sixteenth century

the economist Bodin stated that there was no strength or wealth but that found in the human person. The history of modem nations to-day bears out the truth of that axiom.
In 1870 Germany was considered to be a poor nation. None the less it saw its wealth doubled with the increase of its population during the thirty years preceding the war of 1914. On the other hand, during the same period France saw its wealth and population remain practically stagnant. It is all the more important for a young country like Canada that its population should increase in view of the vast expanses of our dominion and our valuable resources.	Family allocations
will surely make an increased population possible by providing better nutrition and better medical care to our children. These two factors alone will greatly increase our population.
Various insurance companies have endeavoured to place a value upon the person engaged in production.	For example, the
Metropolitan Life Insurance company carried on a wide and extensive research in this connection some few years back. They came to the conclusion that a person thirty years of age earning $50 a week represented some $31,000 of the economic wealth of the country to which he belonged. At his birth this same person represented an economic value of $9,333. Who is responsible for the proper upkeep, development and orientation of this person whose value to the state is $9,333 if it is not his father and mother? Again the research of the Metropolitan Life mentions that the total cost to a family of a producer such as the one just referred to is $7,200.
The family provides the state with willing workers in agriculture, industry, education and science. The greater the family, the greater its power of consumption of goods produced by the industries of the nation. In view of all these services rendered by the family to the country it would appear that some special consideration should be given by the country to large families. In some cases just the opposite prevails in that the larger the family, the greater the indirect taxes paid, and at times there is even a greater payment of direct taxes.
The economist Fallon has well said that family allocations are not a charitable donation but rather an assistance, an indemnity, a payment for service rendered to the state. It is earned in the most respectable sense of the word. It should be considered just as honourable as payment for other services rendered to the state. For example, the judge and magistrate are not paid because they render justice on the basis of their monetary re-

Family _ Allowances
numeration. The soldier does not defend his country for the pay he gets. Both of these categories are paid because of the service they render to their country, and family allocations should be considered in like manner.
Saturday Night of July 8 last had this to say on the question of family allowances:
There are no doubt certain weaknesses about the bonus system, but it has not yet been established that they are greater than the weaknesses of having no system of dealing with the needs of the underprivileged families, or the weaknesses of any other practical method of doing so.
The proposal of Miss Charlotte Whitton for greatly extended revision of social services are admirable, but they do not and cannot guarantee that all needy families would be adequately looked after.
And again:
A united nation is one in which the more fortunate citizens of all kinds, simply because they are citizens and are more fortunate, are willing to be taxed for the benefit of the less fortunate citizens of all kinds, simply because they also are citizens, but are less fortunate, due in great part because of their greater economic responsibility due to large families.
The article ends with:
We shall have a Canadian nation only when we can feel, pretty generally, that a Canadian child is a Canadian child and entitled to certain economic advantages, whether he is French or Scottish, or Ukrainian by racial origin, whether he is in Quebec or Alberta, whether he is the son of a Roman Catholic or a Presbyterian or a Lutheran. We can hasten that time, or, we can defer it, by our attitude on this legislation.
The Labour Review of June last had this to say:
In quite a few countries, children's allowances were paid before the war. After the war, still more countries will have them. Canada has to decide whether or not to keep abreast of Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand in social progress and population policy.
In this sparsely populated land, we should ask ourselves, not -whether we can afford children's allowances, but whether we can afford any longer to do without them.
To bring up a large family of children constitutes an unbearable burden to workers who live a hand-to-mouth existence. Not only does this deprive that family of many essentials of life, but frequently it means absolute poverty.
Of all the contingencies of modern life, that of the overburdened family has been the last to be recognized. It may perhaps be easy to explain the tardiness of the movement. The burden of a large family, although just as serious and lasting an even longer period, has not the striking * appeal of accidents, unemployment, illness, old age dependency, or widowhood and orphanage. Its hardships are more hidden and the social conscience has naturally been slower in awakening. Furthermore, the sufferings of the victims of economic pressure are not so dramatically displayed as are sacrifices of men in war. They are none the less real, although being silently, slowly, and obscurely borne.
The value of a system of family allowances cannot be questioned. No one can deny the injustice now imposed upon parents who have to raise a large family on wages which at times are frequently insufficient for the parents, let alone the children.
Family allowances would relieve much of the anxiety and poverty which now confronts many parents. They would bring about greater efficiency and reduced labour turnover They would supply an additional ready market for consumers goods to the extent of some one hundred million dollars a year at least; they would give an impetus to the better housing movement and greatly contribute to the gradual disappearance of slum housing. They would also be of some assistance in immigration.
From the point of view of society, the family allowance is the safest and surest way of promoting health and raising the standards of the race both physically and morally. It is the easiest way of preventing the stunted growth of children, and is the least expensive method of reducing infant mortality.
The moral law of the universe is progress, and progress always offers shock and dislocation to the institutions of the past. Every generation that passes idly without adding to that progress remains uninscribed upon the register of humanity, and the succeeding generation tramples its ashes as dust.
Every age has its problems, by solving which humanity- is helped forward. The solution of any problem cannot be far wrong if it be solved with a desire for the betterment and social advancement of our fellow men.
I should like in conclusion to quote a paragraph taken from Industry and. Humanity, which reads:
The sacredness of human personality is more important than all the other considerations. Without infinite regard for individual life, however obscure or deformed, expressions of social values are meaningless. Estimates of national power, pride in industrial growth, forecasts of world expansion . . . any and all of these which reckon material gains apart from the human losses they involve, mistake for life itself the coarse texture of but a part of the garment of life.


Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I deem it my duty to commend the government for having introduced this measure in the House of Commons. I must say, at the outset, that my commendation implies some qualifications for
Family Allowances


Mr. FAUTEUX (Translation):: We have a
progressive government.


Frédéric Dorion: That's right.
Notwithstanding the most appropriate remarks made this afternoon by the hon. Minister of Justice, I submit that the provinces ought to have their say in the administration of this social legislation. Not so much from a constitutional aspect as from a practical aspect, as regards implementing this social legislation, the provincial-governments are evidently in a much better position that the dominion government to know the needs of their people. The former come in much closer contact with the individuals who require help and who may benefi-t by this social legislation.
As regards the application of the family allowances principle the provinces are in a much better position than any department of the federal government to carry out such legislation properly. There is more to this, however. As I said earlier, one finds in the bill now before the house striking and important flaws. For my part I will certainly support the bill because I consider it far more important than any question of procedure. To a certain extent, however, I wish to disclaim responsibility for possible after-affects of the bill, for I submit it cannot be applied in its entirety and that the children whom it is intended to favour might not benefit by this act unless it is amended in certain respects. My statement is based on subsection 2 of section 4 which reads as follows:
The allowance shall cease to be payable with the payment for the month when the child attains his sixteenth birthday or when, being above the age of six years and physically fit to attend school, he fails to attend school or to receive equivalent training as prescribed in the regulations or when he dies or ceases to reside in Canada, etc.
^ Now, Mr. Speaker, if there is one matter which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces it is the matter of education. As a matter of fact, I need only refer to section 93 of the British North America Act to find out that the Dominion government can in no way and under no circumstances interfere with education. Now, in this measure, children are compelled to attend school until the age of sixteen. The Dominion government is accordingly enforcing compulsory education.! The door being thus open, where can sucn a system lead us? Who can tell us that the education of our children will

Family Allowances
not, through some regulation enacted under the powers granted the dominion government by this act, have to be given in one way or another? Who can tell us that, the door now being thus open, children will not be compelled to attend some particular school? It might then be maintained that the section I have just mentioned is only being carried out, and I submit


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier) (Translation):: One must have a good deal of imagination to draw such conclusions.


Frédéric Dorion: I am only reading the bill and I submit that imagination has no part in that. I challenge any one to say that under subsection 2 of section 4 compulsory education is not imposed. I shall go farther. School attendance is made compulsory until the age of sixteen! What will happen in the province of Quebec, since under the compulsory education act of that province children must attend school only until the age of fourteen? The provincial act and this one will conflict. It is obvious that the provisions of subsection 2, section 4, of the bill is unconstitutional. That is not all. In section 6 of the same bill, provision is made for the establishment of a court of appeal:
If any person is dissatisfied with a decision as to his right to be paid an allowance or as to the amount of an allowance payable to him or as to any other matter arising under this act, he may appeal against such decision to a tribunal to be established and conducted in accordance with regulations, . . .
Now, in reference to the British North America Act-
Mr. ST. LAURENT (Translation): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will permit me. We are now debating the second reading and the principle involved, not the details. The points brought up by the hon. member are certainly debatable. Details will be examined when each section is submitted to the committee. Does not the hon. member think it would be more profitable to postpone the detailed discussion until the matter is referred to the committee of the house for consideration? I do not want to raise any objection, but the hon. member stated he agreed with the principle of the bill. He will be given all the latitude desired to make representations, which might prove very weighty, when the bill is discussed in detail. The hon. member admitted of his own accord that he did not consider the objections he is discussing at present would justify him in opposing the principle which is submitted to the house for second reading. Would it not be preferable to postpone this discussion until it is possible to arrive at a decision on the objections raised by the hon. member.


Mr. POULIOT (Translation):: He is offering suggestions for the improvement of the bill.
Mr. DORil'ON (Translation): The reason why I raised those two points is that the honourable the Minister of Justice, if I am not mistaken, told us this afternoon, when he discussed the constitutionality of the act, that its going into effect was dependent on two conditions: first, that application should be made in accordance with the provisions of the act, and second, that the money should be spent for the welfare of the child. Now, in answer to the Minister of Justice, I have the right to show that this bill contains, as I said at the outset, sections which, in my opinion, are unconstitutional. I am discussing the principle of the bill by referring to the unconstitutional character of a few sections of this bill. From a practical standpoint, I wish to submit to this house the observations I have to make because, and I do say this with the utmost sincerity, the application of the bill in its present form will be impossible or it will entail so many difficulties that the measures which we now are considering for the benefit of children will not be operative. I think it is proper to discuss, on the matter of principle, the constitutionality of some provisions and the practicability of some others. I believe I am quite in order.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, section 6 provides for the setting up of a tribunal. I suggest that under section 92 of the British North America Act, subsection 14, this is a matter which is,within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces:
The administration of justice in the province, including the constitution, maintenance and organization of [DOT]provincial courts, both of civil and of criminal jurisdiction, and including procedure in civil matters in those courts.
And to exemplify, I would say that at one time some legislation had to be passed by this parliament in connection with the Bankruptcy Court, and it was desired to submit the dispute to a special court. Under the Bankruptcy Act that dispute had to be referred to provincial courts.
Section (d) of chapter 213 states:
"Court" means, in the province of Quebec, the Superior Court.
And section 104 of chapter 213 states:
Such an appeal shall lie to the highest court of final resort for the province or territory in which the proceeding originated.
Therefore, this parliament has no authority to set up this tribunal and clause 6 should be deleted or be amended, otherwise it might give rise to disputes which would prevent the operation of the Act. And further, as the bill now stands, I suggest that the tribunal

Family Allowances

in question would merely be a board to ratify the decisions of the minister as provided by section 5. We have at present in Canada courts capable of administering this act and in my opinion no other courts should be set up for this purpose.
There is another anomaly which I would point out and it is found in section 3. I am absolutely opposed to the decreasing scale of allowances because, as I said a moment ago, family allowances are intended primarily for large families. I suggest that under the scale provided in section 3 this principle is disregarded. As the family increases the allowance decreases. Therefore, I contend that this is contrary to the principle under which family allowances should be given to large families.
There is another and more serious anomaly. Here is the last paragraph of section 3:
Provided that the allowance payable shall, in respect of a fifth child maintained by the parent, be reduced by one dollar and in respect of a sixth child and a seventh child respectively so maintained, by two dollars and in respect of an eighth child and each additional child respectively so maintained, by three dollars.
What is meant by the word "maintain"? Referring back to section 2, I do not think the definition is what we might expect. Here it is:
"maintains" means maintains wholly or substantially.
Then, the word should be taken in its
etymological sense.
A man may have children over 16 whom he maintains and for whom he draws no family allowance, although they contribute to reduce the grant provided for his younger brothers and sisters. .
The following illustration is a perfect example of such a situation. Let us take a family with six children aged 20, 18, 16, 14, 12 and 10. The first three, as frequently happens, are still at school and therefore maintained by their parents; however, they do not entitle them to family allowances because they are over sixteen. The fourteen-year-old, the twelve-year-old and the ten-year-old are respectively the fourth, fifth and sixth children.
Under section 3, these last three children, the only members of the family entitled to the allowances, would see their grants reduced because they have older brothers maintained by their parents.
I consider this a flaw in this measure and, to my mind, it is in direct opposition to the principle of the bill.
I felt it important to point out these flaws and I deemed it my duty to call attention to them immediately so they may be remedied. A practical and properly applied family allowance legislation would answer an obvious need

throughout the country and would benefit the large families.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I shall quote, with your permission, an extract from a poem by Richmond Builder, which, I believe, summarizes this whole situation.
(Text)
So Long As There Are Homes
So long as there are homes to which men turn At the close of clay,
So long as there are homes where children are-[DOT] Where women stay,
If love and loyalty and faith be found Across these sills,
A stricken nation can recover from Its gravest ills.
So long as there are homes where fires burn And there is bread,
So long as there are homes where lamps are lit And prayers are said:
Although a people falter through the dark And nations grope,
With God himself back of these little homes We still can hope.
On motion of Mr. Claxton the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, July 26, 1944